Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bridlington Corporation Bill (King's Consent signified).

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.

Ordered, "That Mr. Parkinson be added to the Committee of Selection"[Sir Frederick Thomson.]

Orders of the Day — DOG RACING (LOCAL OPTION) BILL.

Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

11.3 a.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Before we proceed to discuss this Bill, if we do discuss it this morning, I desire to ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of some importance. I wish to submit that this is not the Bill which passed its Second Reading in this House. The changes made in Standing Committee have been both numerous and drastic, and I believe that I am right in saying that only four lines of the original Bill remain. The whole of the operative Clauses of the original Bill have been placed in one new Clause, and a series of other new Clauses, not originally contemplated when the Bill passed Second Reading, have been added. These are points affecting the structure of the Bill, and would not in themselves, I think, constitute so grave a change as to make it a different Bill, but there are differences in points of principle incorporated in the Bill on which would submit to you that this is not the same Measure. The Bill which passed Second Reading proposed to grant comprehensive powers to local authorities for dealing with this question. The Bill was given a Second Reading because, rightly or wrongly, Members understood that it would be possible for the question to be considered in every aspect by local authorities. An Amendment has been inserted limiting the powers of local authorities in such a way as to make it practically impossible for the situation to be dealt with comprehensively. The limiting provisoes under which the local authorities have to take certain facts, and certain facts only, into consideration, make the Bill completely different in purpose, in intent and in effect.
Further, a vital Amendment has been introduced which revolutionises the whole principle of compensation for confiscation as it has been laid down by this House from time immemorial. That new principle has not only received no approval from this House, but, owing to
an unfortunate incident, with which I need not trouble the House now, we were not able to take a Division upon it even in Standing Committee. I submit that such a revolutionary proposal ought not to be smuggled through Parliament in the form of an Amendment passed in Standing Committee, because I understand that it will not be possible, or it will be extremely difficult, to raise the point now upon Report stage, since it would involve the question of imposing a charge on the taxpayers and on that ground would probably be ruled out of order. I would repeat that in Standing Committee the promoters of the Bill with, I regret to say, the assent of my right hon. Friend, have introduced an entirely revolutionary proposal changing the whole principle on which we have given compensation for loss of property, a, change which may serve as a precedent in matters of far greater import than dog race tracks. I submit that it is not treating the House right, and is not in conformity with the practice of the House, to ask us to accept such Amendments on Report stage. On previous occasions the Speaker has ruled that a Bill so altered has become a different Bill, and has advised that the Bill should be withdrawn and another Bill presented, and I submit that in view of the very wide structural changes in the Bill, and revolutionary changes in principle which have not received, and which cannot now receive, except on Third Reading, the sanction of this House, this is a case in which you might well rule that this Bill, being a different Bill, should not be proceeded with at this stage.

11.10 a.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: If I may be permitted to do so, I would like to support the contention of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) regarding this Bill. The number of words in a Bill may not mean very much, but I would point out that whereas the original Bill contained about 370 words, the Bill which has now come to us from Committee runs to 2,320 words. Words may not say a great deal, but in this Measure they do. In one or two points there is a fundamental difference between the present Measure and the one which secured a Second Reading on the Floor of the House. The proposal in the original Bill was that local authorities should he given the final power to deter-
mine whether they would have a dog-racing track within their territory or not. That provision has been whittled down to such an extent that in a very large proportion of the townships of this country such power would no longer be possessed by the local authorities. In the case of some townships the power would rest with the county council, and where the decision of the local authority was challenged the matter would go to the Court of Quarter Sessions, which would then have the power to determine whether a dog-racing track should exist within a given area. These are points of fundamental importance, and I suggest that what has been done in Committee upstairs is a violation of the understanding reached on the Floor of the House when the Bill was given a Second Reading. Therefore, I support the hon. Member for Aylesbury, though I fear that I may find myself in disagreement with him on other issues.

11.13 a.m.

Mr. RICHARD RUSSELL: The original Bill which secured Second Reading carried my name upon its back, but I confess that I was astonished when I saw the Bill which has come down to us from Committee to find that my name still remained on the hack of it. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) acted in good faith in putting my name on the Bill, but I do not think he acted with that degree of intelligence which the Almighty has given him if he did not realise that the new Bill differed so much from the original Bill that it might be necessary for an hon. Member to reconsider his position in relation to it. I gave my support to the original Bill without hesitation, on account of the proposal that the question of licensing dog tracks should be left to the local authorities. The Bill now takes away from local authorities the power which it originally gave them. I could not support the Bill sinless it were so amended as to restore the original purpose of it.

11.14 a.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): I do not wish to delay the House in coming to a decision, but it is only right that I should say a word,
because of the pledges given by my hon. Friend the present Minister of Transport when he was Under-Secretary for the Home Office and spoke in this House on the Second Reading of this Bill. He made it quite clear that there would have to be many changes made in the Bill if it was to have the support of the Government and if it was to be allowed to proceed by the Government. It is true that when the Bill was originally introduced it did give unlimited powers to local authorities to close down dog racecourse tracks for any reason whatever, including the moral issue, but it was made clear by my hon. Friend the Minister Transport on the Second Reading that unlimited powers could not be granted to local authorities. He said:
It is obvious that no one is competent to decide as to the general morality on a question of this kind except the Imperial Parliament—
in other words, the Government. It is the duty of the Government to deal with the particular moral issue. As regards compensation the hon. and gallant Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) says that compensation has been placed into this Bill and that it was not in the Bill when it was before the House on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Minister of Transport said this on Second Reading:
No one can seriously suggest that under Clause 1 a local authority, without any reason being given, without any opportunity for appeal or for a presentation of the case, shall revoke a licence to a track which has been established for five years, and thus confiscate the whole of the undertaking without compensation of any kind.
Then, in another place, my hon. Friend said, after having dealt with a lot of alterations that would be necessary:
I hope I have said enough to show that if the House decides to give the Bill a Second Reading there will be very difficult problems to be solved in Committee and that considerable changes will have to be made before the Bill can be allowed to proceed through its further stages."—(OFFIcIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1932; cols. 1176, 1180 and 1181, Vol. 272.]
It was upon those statements, made by my hon. Friend, that the House itself decided to give this Bill a Second Reading. I submit that all that has happened in Committee, so far as I know, has been to place into the Bill the promises and the undertakings which were made clear to the House on Second Reading.
Therefore, I submit, with due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, that no alterations have been made in this Bill to make it any different from what the House anticipated it would be when it came down from the Committee stage.

11.17 a.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Lest too much weight be given to a Minister on a Friday, may I counter the submission that has been made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department with a reference to the Amendment that he himself has on the Paper. The title of the Bill is now
a Bill to provide for the licensing of dog racing courses
and the short title of it is "Dog Racing (Local Option)." The Minister has put down an Amendment to change this title to the "Dog Racecourse (Licensing) Act, 1933."

Mr. HACKING: I have no Amendment down to change the title of the Bill.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The right hon. Gentleman has a new Clause which begins:
This Act may be cited as the Dog Racecourse (Licensing) Act, 1933.

Mr. HACKING: That is the short title.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Exactly. I think that the point I am making is a good one. Private Members are always at a disadvantage in not having had legal advice on the Bills that they submit. The Home Office in this matter is presumably being guided by the proper authority which says that the Bill which is down for consideration to-day, as it has come down from the Committee, should no longer be called the "Dog Racing (Local Option) Act" but that it should be called, as the right hon. Member suggests in his Amendment, the "Dog Racecourse (Licensing) Act." That seems to me to give the whole case away, from his point of view. The authorities admit that the description "Dog Racing (Local Option)," as applied to the Bill as sent down from the Committee, is wrong, and if that is wrong as its description we may assume that it is not a local option Bill any more. It was a local option Bill when it left this House, but it is so changed that I think that the submission
of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) is perfectly correct, and that the Home Office has admitted that by their official Amendment.

11.20 a.m.

Mr. SPEAKER: As I understood the Bill which received a Second Reading by the House, it was one to provide for the licensing of dog racing courses; as I understand the Bill that is now before the House, as it has come down from Committee, it is still a Bill to provide for licensing of dog racing courses. I have studied the original Bill side by side with the Bill as it left the Committee—not to the extent of counting the words but with a view to ascertaining the object of the two Bills and whether there is any difference between them. I must say that I see nothing in the amended Bill to lead me to the conclusion that it is not the same Bill in an amended form as the one to which the House gave a Second Reading. I remember some five years ago that I had to give a Ruling on another Bill, and that the same kind of point was raised. Curiously enough, that Bill was also one to do with racing, the Racecourse Betting Bill, and, in giving my Ruling, I said then that the Bill was the same Bill as the original skeleton Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading, but that since it had been in Committee it had been clothed with flesh and blood. I might say the same thing in regard to this Bill. What has really been done in Committee has been to elaborate the conditions under which the licence may be granted. Nothing, so far as I can see, has been inserted in it which is outside the scope of the Bill.

11.22 a.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I beg to move,
That the Bill be re-committed in respect of the new Clause in the name of Secretary Sir Godfrey Collins.
You, Sir, have just pointed out that the Bill as it left the House was a skeleton Bill and that it has been clothed with flesh and blood in Committee. The Secretary of State for Scotland apparently wants to give it a little more flesh, and he proposes a new Clause dealing with the application of the Bill to Scotland. Though I personally was not a Member of the Standing Committee,
I understand from certain proceedings, and from what I have been told, that practically no consideration was given to this aspect of the subject, and that this new Clause, of which notice was only given on Wednesday, was apparently not satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman who gave notice of it, because I see by the asterisk on the Paper that it is presented to us in a different form this morning. It is a long Clause which raises issues in respect of Scotland which are to be the subject of Amendments so far as England and Wales are concerned, during our proceedings this morning—if you decide to select certain Amendments—as to what authority is to deal with these matters. With such short notice of a Clause of this length, dealing with the curious complexities of Scottish legislation, which none of us who sit for English constituencies ever understand, because, as a rule, we are careful to be out of the House when they are under discussion—we usually find that it is the safest place to be, when they are under discussion—there ought to be a proper opportunity for considering in Committee all the serious implications. Some of those implications are serious, such as the method of control in Scotland, where it is identical with the method proposed for England and Wales.
My familiarity with Scottish law is insufficient, but a Clause which occupies half a page of the Order Paper, and the interpretation of which may give rise to a good deal of controversy, in respect of which there is no practical opportunity in the circumstances of proper consideration of the Amendments, does not seem to me a fair proposition for this House. In those circumstances, I strongly urge upon the House the desirability of recommitting the Bill in respect of this Clause. I see from the Order Paper that it is desired to recommit the Bill in respect of other Clauses. Whatever the fate of my Amendment may be, and if my proposal is rejected, one of the other proposals may be accepted, and my end will be achieved. There is some indication from the promoters of the Bill that they are prepared to accept a general recommittal. If so, there will be no necessity for me to press the proposal which I am now putting to the House.

11.25 a.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I beg to second the Motion.
I venture to suggest that neither the House nor the Standing Committee has been treated throughout with scrupulous courtesy in this matter. After all, when the House sends a Bill to a Standing Committee, it does so, presumably, with the intention that the average run of Amendments shall be dealt with there. The Report stage of the Bill is meant, either for getting the decision of the House on matters too important for the Standing Committee, or for clearing up odds and ends which have been left over from the Committee stage. When, however, an important question like the whole application of the Bill to Scotland is left over without a word having been said about it in Committee, I think it shows scant courtesy both to the Rouse and to the Standing Committee. I can see no reason why the question, if it was to be discussed, should not have been discussed in the Standing Committee; I do not think it is a matter for the Report stage at all.

11.27 a.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Before the Secretary of State for Scotland replies, may I ask him one or two questions which appear to me to be pertinent? Paragraph (b) of the proposed new Clause says:
The expression 'public nuisance' shall mean nuisance.
Does that mean that what is a public nuisance in England and Wales is only a nuisance in Scotland? I hesitate very much to intervene on Scottish affairs, because, when I did so on a previous occasion, I had my knuckles rapped by the Duke of Montrose. I should also like to ask what is meant by the expression "Act of Sederunt."

Mr. SPEAKER: Had we not better leave these points until the Clause is discussed?

11.28 a.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I will give a clear reply to the hon. Member's questions if and when the Clause comes before the House. The Seconder of the Motion has suggested that a lack of courtesy to the House was indicated by the placing of this Clause on the Paper
when the matter had not been considered by the Committee upstairs; but it was thought well, whether rightly or wrongly, to leave this defining Clause until the Report stage of the Bill, in view of the fact that during the progress of the Bill we were unaware as to what the exact Bill would be which would come before the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I may remind you, Sir, that only a very few lines of the original Bill remain. The Mover of the Motion stated that the proposed new Clause standing in my name would give more flesh to the present Bill, but may I point out that the Clause is a purely defining Clause, making it clear that, if the Bill is applied to Scotland, the proper machinery to carry into effect the views of the House of Commons will be provided? For these reasons I submit that we were in order in placing the Clause on the Paper at the time that we did.

11.30 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I should like to point out that later on the Paper there are many Amendments on the question of what shall be the controlling licensing authority—whether it shall be a county borough council or some other type of local authority; and I would submit that, until we have decided on those matters, we are, from the point of view of Scotland, deciding in advance what is the right thing to do. That this Bill should be re-committed would, I believe, be advantageous to the Government. When the Bill was first introduced, the whole position of dog racing was very different from what it is now. It will be remembered that at that time it was held that the totalisator was legal, and, consequently, there was an urge up and down the country to start dog racing tracks, which were profitable, not by reason of the attendance at the track, but by reason of the revenue that it was possible to get from the totalisator. As soon as the High Court laid it down that the employment of the totalisator was illegal, the whole position up and down the country was altered, and no one can say that there is now a rush anywhere to establish dog racing tracks. Consequently, there is no hurry or desire throughout the country that this Bill should be got through, as there was when it was first introduced.
The Minister has already told us that on high questions of policy and on moral issues this House, and only this House, is to decide. Obviously, later in the year, we are going to have recommendations from a Commission, upon which legislation from the Government will become inevitable, and it seems to me that from their point of view, if from no other, it would be well to give a certain time, to put the Bill back and see what the recommendations of the Commission are, and then, if possible, to wed the Bill up with the proposed legislation to be introduced by the Government at a later stage. By going on with the Bill now, we shall possibly introduce legislation making it more difficult for the Government to legislate after they have received the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Government could quite easily say that they would find time for further consideration of the Bill, and to send it back to a Committee for reconsideration of several of these points would not, I believe, be a bad plan from the point of view of the Government themselves.

11.33 a.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I should like to support what has just been said, because it seems to me that there remain some difficult points to clear up. Anyone looking at the Order Paper must realise that there is a great deal of mixed feeling on this Bill, and it seems to me that the simplest way of dealing with a very difficult position would be to recommit the Bill to a Committee that would go into it and deal with it in a proper way, really making up their mind as to what they want and how they want it. I have grave doubts as to whether the proposed new Clause dealing with Scotland is really only a definition Clause. Since that statement was made, I have looked at one or two points in the Clause, and it seems to me that one paragraph in particular goes a good long way. I do not pretend to understand from the legal point of view what is a definition Clause, or all the various points with regard to Scots law which are involved, but the Clause is certainly immensely complicated. Indeed, it almost looks like one with which the Scottish Grand Committee might deal. I believe that the great proportion of moderate opinion in the House would like to see the Bill
recommitted and really reorganised in order to meet the different points of view, so that, when it came back to the House, it could be dealt with in a short time, without the necessity for an Order Paper of such length as that with which we now have to deal.

11.35 a.m.

Captain GUNSTON: I have been one of those who have supported this Bill all through, because I have felt that it was necessary that local authorities should have control, but I am very much impressed by the arguments which have been put forward this morning. A considerable amount of the value of the Bill has been lost and, as all this matter is, so to speak, in the air and the Royal Commission has not yet reported, it seems rather a waste of time to try to force the Bill through at the moment. Even if we pass it, we shall have to reconsider the whole thing when the Royal Commission reports. Therefore, while supporting the Bill—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a general criticism of the Bill. He is confined to discussing its recommittal in respect of one par-particular Clause.

Captain GUNSTON: I apologise if I went beyond the scope of the Motion. I hope the Government will consider the views which have been put forward from all sides of the House.

11.36 a.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I was extremely surprised to see this Motion on the Paper this morning. As a matter of procedure, it is very unfortunate that a Clause of this importance should only be brought before the House on the Report stage. It is obviously one that ought to be considered in Committee and, as a Scottish Member, I must protest against it being brought in now.

11.37 a.m.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I wish to join in the protest. I also was surprised to see this on the Paper. The complete alteration that there is in the Bill as it stands now and as it was sent to Committee would be conclusively shown if the Secretary for Scotland had explained what an Act of Sederunt actually meant and how it would have to be obtained
before it could be put into operation. It would have shown the real character of the new Bill, that the whole Court of Session procedure in Scotland would have had to be employed in getting an Act of Sederunt through the House before an appeal could be heard.

Sir G. COLLINS: It was no act of discourtesy that I did not explain. I thought a suitable opportunity of doing so would be when the Clause came before the House.

Mr. MACLEAN: Some Members were asking for an explanation of what this actually meant, and I am putting to the House, composed of Members who do not understand Scottish legal procedure, what would actually be meant, that there would have to be a regulation to lie on the Table for a certain number of days before there could be put into operation any of the legal formalities that would have to be gone through in order to have an appeal taken to the courts in Scotland. I think I am interpreting, though I am not a lawyer, what the Solicitor-General would have said if he had given the explanation. To English Members it would have seemed a rather roundabout and curious method of getting at a point which could be obtained under the English law without having to come to the House for further regulations. To put a Clause of this kind through all its stages without Members having an opportunity of reading it and getting to know what it actually means and putting down Amendments to it, while not, perhaps, treating the House with discourtesy, because this sort of thing has been done before, is one of those things which Members have always objected to and protested against. I also object and protest against this new Clause being brought up on Report.

11.40 a.m.

Miss HORSBRUGH: I think it was understood, when the Bill left the House, that it was to apply to Scotland also, and it was naturally agreed, or supposed to be agreed, by most people that the actual legal changes to bring it on to the right lines of legal procedure in Scotland would at some stage be made to the Bill. It has been pointed out to-day that in England the totalisator is not now legal, while in Scotland it is legal. I do not think it much matters to the subject matter of the Bill whether the totalisator is legal or not. I do not think that change
has made much difference. The Clause simply defines the meaning of the Bill as it now is, giving it the same meaning as it had when it went to Committee and using the appropriate legal terms.

11.42 a.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The hon. Lady says the purpose of the Clause is to bring Scottish procedure into line with English. There is a very important Amendment to Clause 4 in the name of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) and, if that is passed, unless I am wrong in my interpretation, we shall have inserted the Scottish Clause and shall find, when we finish, that the English Clause is different. We ought to settle the main structure of the Bill before we insert the Scottish Clause.

Sir G. COLLINS: I ought to have explained that the new Clause in my name was placed upon the Paper before the House rose for the Easter Recess. It is necessary to make provision for the proper working of the Bill in Scotland.

Question put, "That the Bill be recommitted in respect of the new Clause in the name of Secretary Sir Godfrey Collins."

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. M. Beaumont and Mr. H. Williams were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Bill re-committed to the former Committee in respect of the new Clause standing in the name of Secretary Sir Godfrey Collins.

11.46 a.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, "That the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee in respect of Clauses 1 and 4."
I am not quite sure what the situation now is, Mr. Speaker, in view of the Motion which has just been passed. The Motion which I am making is that Clauses 1 and 4 should be re-committed to the same Standing Committee as has already discussed the Bill. I should like to know as a, matter of convenience—I do not know whether you can give a ruling off-hand—whether the Scottish Clause will be automatically re-committed to that Committee or not, because it may rather alter the Motion which I am making.

Mr. SPEAKER: As the Motion did not specify re-committal to a Committee of the whole House, the matter will naturally go before the former Committee.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am obliged to you, because I was not quite clear about it. Therefore, that being so, it will be simple for the same Committee to reconsider Clauses 1 and 4 of the Bill. I suggest that the House should send back Clauses 1 and 4 to be discussed again because there are very important Amendments put down on the Report stage which alter in effect the constitution of the local authority which is to exercise the local option. I do not wish to delay the House more than a minute or two on the point—because I have made it incidentally already this morning—that the Home Office so far considers this to be a different Bill that it has put down a new Clause in the name of the Under-Secretary altering the citation of the Act to be passed to the "Dog Racecourse (Licensing) Act," instead of "Dog Racing (Local Option) Act." You ruled earlier this morning that it is the same Bill to all intents and purposes as that which passed Second Reading, but, owing to the fact that the Bill which passed Second Reading is called the "Dog Racing (Local Option) Bill" to provide for the licensing of dog racing courses, it was to that extent limited so that Amendments could not be accepted on the Committee stage setting up a form of control board or any other method of licensing dog race courses, except the method of local option, which is understood to mean a method of licensing by some local authority but not by some ad hoc board. Therefore, all the Amendments dealing with ad hoc boards were not within the scope and title of the Bill.
If we go on later to accept the Home Office Clause altering the citation of the Bill and call it "Dog Racecourse (Licensing) Act," to provide for the licensing of dog racing courses, it seems to me that it would then be in order—with all humility I make the submission—to discuss alternative systems of licensing dog racing courses because the whole reference in the description and title and the apparent object of the Bill, in spite of the speeches on the Second Reading, local option, would disappear. I state that to show what an absurd muddle this piece of legislation is getting
into. The best and soundest advice of all Governments is "to send it to a Committee." I put it to the House that on this occasion it would be very well advised to throw back to the original Standing Committee, which has already discussed and therefore knows something about the difficulties of the problem, both Clauses 1 and 4, which are the authority given to local authorities to license and describe what such local authorities should be. Remembering that the Committee has already to deal with Scotland and therefore must be re-set up, it will not be asking too much that it should go into these further questions as well.

11.51 a.m.

Mr. CLARRY: I beg to second the Motion.
The only obvious thing to do at this stage is to re-commit the Clauses. The Bill with respect to the Scottish Clauses is to be re-committed to the old Standing Committee, and, as there seems to be such an enormous amount of confusion existing at the present time, quite apart from what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, the only obvious thing to do is, not only to re-commit the Bill with respect to these two Clauses, but with respect to the whole of the Bill.

11.52 p.m

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I and other Members of the House spent days upon days in Committee dealing with this Bill. Nothing was said by the Mover of the Motion to-day as to what we should be asked to do if these two Clauses were re-committed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Read the Order Paper!"] Yes, but it does not follow that what appears on the Order Paper is what is in the minds of hon. Gentlemen. We have now reached a crisis on the Bill and we had better face up to it at once. If the Bill is to be re-committed to the Committee upstairs, I will support the Motion if it means that all the local authorities suggested in the original Bill, without the intervention of Quarter Sessions, are entitled to determine whether they shall have a dog racing track within their district or not. Every Member in this House must have his own Parliamentary Division in his mind. I represent a County Division comprising
five urban district councils situated 20 to 25 miles away from the county town of Preston, where the Lancashire County Council holds its gatherings and has its public offices. Out of the five local authorities in my Division only one of them has over 20,000 inhabitants. The representations which I have received from those local authorities is that they feel more competent to decide whether they shall have a dog racing course within their own district than either the Quarter Sessions or the Lancashire County Council.
I come to another phase of the Bill which baffles me, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends will help us on this point. In referring these Clauses back to the Standing Committee, will they tell the House now that they want the Bill so altered as to give power to the type of local authorities which I have mentioned? If the House gives an indication of that kind this morning we can easily take the Bill back, including the Clauses referred to as well. On the other hand, if it is the intention of hon. Members, as some of them did upstairs, to decry the local authorities and say that urban councils shall have no locus standi at all in relation to dog racing tracks I, for one, shall vote against them on the Motion for recommittal of these Clauses to Committee upstairs. The House, I think, has to decide to-day on that one principle. It is no use without such instructions sending the Bill upstairs to the same Standing Committee. We shall have a division of opinion upon that fundamental issue exactly in the same way once again. Without offending anybody, I believe that there is a feeling in connection with this Measure that the public welfare has not received the attention which it deserves. I will add another word, without offending anybody I hope, and that is that I find there is too much vested interest shown in connection with dog racing. If there is a means of finding out this morning what the view of the House is with regard to the powers of local authorities I will support the Motion to send the two Clauses back to the Committee, but it is no use sending them to the same Committee to have the same haggling once again and to bring them back to the House as they stand to-day.

11.56 a.m.

Mr. HACKING: I want to make it clear what it is that the hon. Member is suggesting. He has suggested that the Clause could be referred back to the Committee with instructions from this House to reconsider the point as to who is to be the licensing authority. The only reason why I have risen is to tell the hon. Member that this House can do that just as easily as the Committee. There is no reason why we should revert to the Committee on an issue of that kind when we could deal with the matter now on the Report stage.

Mr. DAVIES: That is exactly what I meant, but I could not put it quite as intelligently as the right hon. Member.

11.57 a.m.

Mr. REMER: On a point of Order. The hon. Member has raised a matter of very considerable importance. He has said that when we come to Clause 4 we can raise these matters on the Report stage. The information that I have received, and I should like your Ruling on it, is that the Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), the hon. and learned Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) and myself, which have been put down at the instance of various associations representing corporations and urban district councils, cannot be moved unless the Bill is recommitted. That is the sole reason why I have on the Order Paper a Motion dealing with Clause 4. I should like your Ruling as to whether the advice given to us is in accordance with your view.

Mr. SPEAKER: I may inform the hon. Member that I was intending to call the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Ripon.

11.58 a.m.

Major HILLS: I can only speak for myself, but, I feel that the Bill in its present shape is quite impossible. The Clause I should imagine has been drafted by someone who has no idea of what local government means. You have urban district councils and county boroughs with populations of 30,000, 40,000 and 50,000 who have their own education and health services and their own police, and to say that they are to lose their local control, which they can best exercise, is to go back on all the recent history of local
government. We all know our own cases. The town of Harrogate., for instance, which is well known to a good many Members of this House, has little community of interests with the West Riding County Council sitting at Wakefield. By all the rules that have always guided this House these bodies ought to have the control in a, matter which intimately affects the social life and well-being of their districts.
Whether the matter is to be decided by the House or the Committee I do not mind so long as it is quite clear from Mr. Speaker's ruling that we shall not be told that by including the smaller local authorities we are increasing the charge on the rates and that, therefore, this Amendment cannot be moved on Report. For that reason, and also because the new Scottish Clause gives a different system of local control in Scotland from the one that I think the House will give in England, I think the Bill ought to be recommitted in respect of Clauses 1 and 4. Thereby it will be clear that the Committee will be able to reconsider the whole question. I was not on the Committee. If I had been on the Committee I should have supported the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), and I think that a different atmosphere would have prevailed.

12 n.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I desire to associate myself with the Motion moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), if for no other reason than that the recommittal of the Clause is virtually the only way in which we can get the Scottish Clause in conformity with the English Clause. In Committee the Scottish Clause would come after the English Clause, but on Report the reverse is the case. Otherwise, you will have the possibility that the new Scottish Clause will not be in conformity with the later alterations that may be made in the English Clause. Dealing with the point raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) in regard to the effect in the Committee if the Bill went back, I am very largely in agreement with him that in the consideration of the Bill sufficient attention was not given to the interests of the public. The reason for that was that the Committee had no guide as to what were the wishes of the House in the matter. We had one
Bill passing through the House and we had an Amendment raising a totally different point, which was not raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, and we had to decide on it.
I regret that the local authorities should be mixed up in this matter, but I am entirely with the hon. Member in thinking that if you are going to have the local authority as the licensing authority, it is absurd to have quarter sessions as the court of appeal, and vice versa. Therefore, I suggest that the only way that we can straighten out this very complicated matter, which has been allowed to get into a state of hopeless confusion, is by recommitting Clauses 1 and 4 to the Committee. In regard to the question of compensation, it is true that it was foreshadowed by the present Minister of Transport, but it was not in the entirely novel form that was put before us. That will come up on Clause 1. We had an unfortunate incident in the Standing Committee in that we had no opportunity of coming to a decision as to whether this form of compensation or some proper compensation should be granted. We cannot come to such a decision on Report, because the only way of doing it would be to impose a charge, which would not be in order. That is an additional reason for sending the Clause back to the Committee, where the matter may be thoroughly thrashed out and decided.

12.4 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: I should like to say a few words in regard to what was said by the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills). He is anxious to give the power of licensing to the smaller local authorities, who are the people who really know the needs of their own district. In order to do that he suggests that the House should recommit the Bill in respect of Clauses 1 and 4. I was a member of the previous Committee and I would point out what was the vote on an Amendment of a precisely similar nature in the Committee. It was rejected by 12 votes to seven. Therefore, I do not see what security we have that the same Committee will not arrive at the same decision next time. Now that this question has been ventilated in the House, even to the small extent that it has this morning, there is
a great probability of the House showing reason and giving to the local authorities what they expected to get in the Bill which was given a Second Reading, namely, power of control over their local affairs. It is for this House, I think, to do that. While in entire agreement with my right hon. Friend, I regret that I have come to a precisely opposite conclusion as to the merit of sending these particular Clauses upstairs to be considered by the same Committee which sent them down to this House in the unsatisfactory state in which we find them. This is subject to the one over-riding condition that we shall be in order in moving this Amendment, and that we shall not be told we cannot do so under the Standing Order which prevents us imposing a charge. If you are going to call that Amendment, Mr. Speaker, I presume that it has had your consideration and, therefore, my right hon. Friend may have no anxiety. I am entirely opposed to referring back to the same Committee matters which, in the general opinion of the body of the House, they have settled unsatisfactorily.

12.7 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I support the recommittal of these two Clauses. If the Government wish to change the name and title of the Bill from the Dog Racing (Local Option) Bill to the Dog Racing (Licensing) Bill, they can do so. There is also the possibility, adumbrated in the Order Paper, of setting up a Dog Racing Control Board. That would become a possibility. We never considered that in Committee, and it may be a very valuable suggestion to the Government. It does not cut across local authorities, and it may be a very great help to the Government if we recommit these Clauses. We ought to consider the proposals, adumbrated in the Order Paper, of which we never thought before.

12.9 p.m.

Mr. CURRY: When the proposal was made to recommit these two Clauses to the Committee I was very much inclined to support it, because I, like others, while in accord with the principle and purpose of the original Bill, have very great misgivings about the Bill now before the House. The discussion which has taken place has, however, clarified the issue very considerably. We have found that those who are dissatisfied with Clauses 1
and 4 desire further consideration for precisely opposite purposes. Some desire recommittal in order to safeguard investments of capital and the ownership of property. Others, of a different school of thought desire further reconsideration of the principle of local government, as applied to the lives of the community and the well-being of the community, which should be paramount.
Consideration of vested interests is the issue, and it seems to me that the reconsideration would be better, in the, public interest, if we could vote upon the Floor of the House, in view of what has taken place. Although, at first, I was anxious to support this recommittal Motion, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot do so. Those of us, whose minds are working in that direction, are entitled to have some assurance that the issue we desire to fight out on the Floor of the House is going to be allowed to be fought out there, and that we are not to be circumvented by rules of procedure and points of Order. The issue raised by the various Amendments is a simple one—a statutory body, deriving the whole of its authority from the votes of the people, to establish a really free government and administration within the area over which it has been given authority.

12.11 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: As a Member of the Committee, I am rather inclined to think that there is a little bit of the game of chess being played in the House of Commons. There is a hiding of thought and action for the purpose of achieving an end. I feel convinced that the recommittal of Clauses 1 and 4 would achieve exactly what I would desire, and what may be the desire of other hon. Members. It is in my mind to get rid of this Bill. I believe that the recommittal of Clauses 1 and 4 would be the death of the Bill—as far as I can judge the effect of Parliamentary procedure. I am convinced that legislation must be brought in at an early date for the proper supervision and control of dog racing tracks. Any action we may take now with regard to a Bill of this description is going to make further legislation very complex. I am one of those who believe in being constructive, and I do not think this House ought to be harassed with any legislation which is going to make it more difficult to deal
with this matter later on. Local authorities have a right to have their views expressed in this House by hon. Members, and they have a right to consider local amenities. Hon. Members have also the right to consider the question of the jurisdiction of local authorities. There is also a moral issue and, because I feel it would be more constructive, I would say, from the point of view of the game of chess, that I support the recommittal of these Clauses.

12.13 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: As the Mover of the Bill, I speak for the first time. There seemed to be any number of hon. Members ready to speak before me, and I did not think I would be helping the Bill if I intervened earlier. I am in favour of local authorities deciding for themselves. I am in favour of urban district councils, even if they have a lower population than 20,000, deciding for themselves whether they will have a dog racing track or not, and how many they shall have. I am prepared to meet those who hold these views in every possible way that I can. With regard to the licensing justices, I cannot accept an appeal to the Quarter Sessions. I would rather see the local authorities dig their own grave. If they want to have a dog racing track, let them have it.

12.14 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: As a Member of the Committee, I agree that the Bill, as we see it this morning, was not the intention of the promoter who has just sat down. When the House gave a Second Reading to this Bill, many of us fought for it, because we thought the time had arrived when some control by a licensing authority should be created for dog racing tracks. The original Bill made it perfectly clear that its promoter desired local option. Now, whether we like it or not, it is true to say that the hon. Members who have taken part in the discussion this morning have, in the discussion of the Bill upstairs, sought ways and means to prevent local authorities from having the right of control. That is what caused the tremendous division upstairs in Committee. It is pretty evident that those who are moving the re-committal of these two Clauses have no intention of altering their view regarding local authorities.
I think that I am expressing the sentiments of the country along with my col-
leagues when I say that this issue will sooner or later have to be finally settled. I think that the country as a whole is totally in favour of the local authorities themselves deciding this issue, and unless we can get some guarantee that a changed view is now established in the minds of some of our Friends opposite who have taken part in this morning's discussion, we cannot agree to the re-committal of these two Clauses. Many of us feel that the local authorities who are controlling the destinies, not only of town planning but public health and everything in connection with the amenities of their districts, are the right and proper bodies to have control of these dog-racing tracks, and ought to have a definite say in licensing them. I cannot support the re-committal of these two Clauses unless there is a very changed outlook on the part of the Members of the Committee who stated from the start that they did not believe in local authorities having a say at all. That is what divides us, because we contend that local authorities, whether large or small, ought to have the principal say as to whether or not a dog track is to be established in their district.

12.17 p.m.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: I rise to support the recommittal of these two important Clauses, for the reason that I honestly believe that the House is so uneasy over this Bill because it realises that the Bill deals with a very important subject in a rather piecemeal fashion. Although I was not a Member of the Committee which examined the Bill in detail, nevertheless one realises from the Debate this morning that all parties are in favour of adequate control of dog-racing in this country, and I am one of those who believe that it is the duty of the Government to present to the House for its consideration an official Government Bill wherein a controlling body and the local authorities find their proper place. It is obvious that there are at least four important outstanding features which have not received the consideration they deserve by the Committee upstairs. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) has pointed out the all-important question of compensation. For one reason or another it was not considered by the Committee. Another ques-
tion which the House, I think, ought to consider is that of appeal to Quarter Sessions.
In addition to that, the real fundamental reason why the House is unhappy about the Measure is that they know perfectly well the whole country is awaiting the final report of the Royal Commission. Although it is true to say that the Commission is concerned only with forma of betting which might take place on dog tracks, nevertheless it is impossible to believe or conceive of the Government dealing with that question by legislation unless they have regard to the whole moral issue of dog racing as such. I venture to think that the wishes of the House would be met best if these two important Clauses were recommitted to the Committee upstairs, and by the time that Committee had an opportunity of considering them it is reasonable to suppose that the Royal Commission would have reported and that their recommendations would be borne in mind by the Committee when reconsidering the whole question.

12.20 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: It must be clear to hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House that the notice sent round in the names of six hon. Members wherein they say that unless the series of Amendments on 15 pages of the Order Paper are accepted and the Bill wholly transformed to What they think it ought to be, is a suggestion to be present this morning to kill the Bill. That is clearly the intention of several hon. Members. They are quite entitled to their point of view, but hon. Members who really would like local authorities to have some control over the licensing of dog-racing tracks ought to know exactly for what they are voting when this Motion goes to a Division. The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) has indicated his point of view. He wants local option. I entirely agree with him, but he is already satisfied I think, after listening to the Debate, that to recommit Clauses 1 and 4 means the death of the Bill. Clearly, should the Motion be carried it would be the end of this Bill, and the end of the hope of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
There has been a very big effort made to transform completely the intention and purpose of the Measure. By a side-wind
there has been an attempt to set up some national control board on the lines of the Betting Control Board for horse racing, in the hope, as some hon. Members have said this morning, that that will be a preliminary to what they hope will happen when the Betting Commission make their report. Hon. Members who put down Amendments filling 15 pages found yesterday that the Amendments were all to be ruled out of order, and clearly they are in full force this morning to kill the Bill, for recommittal certainly means killing the Bill, and no one ought to be in any doubt on the point. Mr. Speaker has very kindly suggested that an Amendment to Clause 4 can be moved if the House proceeds to discuss the Measure. That, at all events, will give some hope that the Government will consider sympathetically the desires of local authorities in whose districts there is a population of 20,000 or less, and because there is still a chance of effect being given to the original intention of the promoter of the Bill, I hope that the Motion to recommit the two Clauses will be defeated.

12.24 p.m.

Mr. GODFREY WILSON: I support the proposal to recommit the Bill from, perhaps, a point of view which has not been expressed by anyone else, and that is the point of view of hostility to everything to do with dog racing. I should like to see the whole thing abolished, rot-and-branch, and if the proposal to recommit the Bill will have that effect, it will have my complete support. I cannot help feeling that it is the duty of the Government to await the report of the Royal Commission, and for the Government to bring in a Bill which will give the House an opportunity of deciding, in the interests of the whole community, whether dog racing should be abolished altogether, restricted or dealt with by some form of local option.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I think that the Motion to recommit the Bill would give us a double chance, but that depends on the attitude of the Government. I want to express complete agreement with what was said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills). He and I have been asked by the Non-County Boroughs Association to table certain Amendments giving them the power of dealing with this question. The local authority, the
urban district council or the rural district council, is near and on the spot, but the county council is far away. This matter is vital to the districts concerned. The Bill as drafted is one more attempt to curtail the powers of the smaller local authorities, and I put it to the House that it is not good for the local political life of the country that these powers should be taken away and over-ridden by the larger authorities. For these reasons I think that by recommittal we shall have a double chance of obtaining what we wish, that is the preservation of the powers of the smaller local bodies. That chance will come in Committee upstairs and again on Report.

Captain GUNSTON: I am a Member who originally had put down Amendments to give powers to local authorities The House may remember that when we went into Committee the promoter of the Bill produced an Amendment which altered the whole Bill. That met the views of the small local authorities. Unfortunately, the promoter's good intention was upset one day in Committee, curiously enough, as far as I can see, when there was no longer a quorum present. I believe that we ought to recommit the Bill. My hon. Friend opposite when he used the word "we" in regard to local authorities, did not mean it in any party sense, because many of us on this side and on the other side are as keen as the hon. Member on giving powers to small local authorities. But we ought to face facts, and the facts, I understand, are that with the recommital on the Scottish Clause the Bill is practically dead. Therefore, it would be very unwise, if the Bill is to die, that it should die in its present form.
I believe that the House is not satisfied with the Bill as it left the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont), the only Whig left in the House, who hates all local authorities, large or small, has made an admission, and we now know what to expect if we should have the misfortune in future to be on the same Committee as the hon. Member. He says that the House has now got guidance. I hope he has noticed that the whole House has spoken, with almost one voice, in favour of the smaller local authorities having control. When this Bill comes up in future, or any future Bill comes up, it is on record that my hon. Friend and his
friends will be prepared to abide by the guidance of this House. For these reasons and in the interests of local authorities I hope the House will recommit the Bill.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: We have missed two absolutely first-class speeches, and that has been a disappointment. One of my right hon. Friends had Amendments on the Paper and they have been controverted by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). I have for a long while been meditating what to do on this matter. On the whole I have come down on the side that probably it would not be quite wise to recommit the Bill. I am not absolutely decided yet. It does seem that the Standing Committee on the Bill was not very well attended. We gather that from figures that we have heard. That being the case, as the House is obviously interested in this subject on this Friday afternoon, perhaps it would be better if we proceeded to deal with the Bill.
Before I decide on this matter I want to get the authority of two people. In the first place, of course, there are authorities on dog racing, very great authorities, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon). But he is not the supreme authority on dog racing in this House, and before we decide it is obvious

that we should go to the fountain-head, the man who really knows this job inside out. Needless to say I refer to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). No one knows more about dog racing than he does. If he would decide where his mind is, that would help me and I might be able to make up my mind. But there is one other person who quite clearly is brimming over with speeches and a flow of words, such as we seldom have the opportunity of hearing, and before we decide so many important points—what is constitutionally best, what the Government want, whether we are really doing the best thing in the interests of private Members and things of that kind—he really ought to appear. The right hon. Gentleman quite clearly is desirous of making a speech. He can decide this question. I feel sure that this is one of the occasions when his rule of silence should be broken. We must hear the Patronage Secretary. He is dying to make a speech. This is one of the subjects dear to his heart. I do entreat him on this occasion to get up and tell us all about it.

Question put, "That the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee in respect of Clauses 1 and 4."

The House divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 104.

Division No. 149.]
AYES.
[12.33 p.m.


Adams, D. m. (Poplar, South)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
North, Captain Edward T.


Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nunn, William


Apsley, Lord
Groves, Thomas E.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllston)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hartland, George A.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hornby, Frank
Remer, John R.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Levy, Thomas
Storey, Samuel


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Liddall, Walter s.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Logan, David Gilbert
Tate, Mavis Constance


Clarry, Reginald George
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Thompson, Luke


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dawaon, Sir Philip
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Weymouth, Viscount


Denville, Alfred
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Dickie, John P.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T, C.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Donner, P. W.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Doran, Edward
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Wise, Alfred R.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Morrison, William Shephard



Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Munro, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph
Mr. Michael Beaumont and Mr.




Herbert Williams.


NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Boulton, W. W.
Burnett, John George


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Briant, Frank
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Cape, Thomas


Banfield, John William
Browne, Captain A. C.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Clarke, Frank


Clayton Dr. George C.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
John, William
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Selley, Harry R.


Cooke, Douglas
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Crossley, A. C.
Lawson, John James
Shuts, Colonel J. J.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Leckie, J. A.
Slater, John


Curry, A. C.
Lewis, Oswald
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Daggar, George
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Soper, Richard


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Davies, Rhys John (Weathoughton)
Lunn, William
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Dobble, William
Mabane, William
Spans, William Patrick


Duggan, Hubert John
Magnay, Thomas
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Edwards, Charles
Maltland, Adam
Summersby, Charles H.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thorne, William James


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Tinker, John Joseph


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Parkinson, John Allen
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Pearson, William G.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Goff. Sir Park
Penny, Sir George
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Goldie, Noel B.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Gower, Sir Robert
Picktord, Hon. Mary Ada
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Price, Gabriel
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwlch)
Womersley, Walter James


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Rankin, Robert
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Hirst, George Henry
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Holdsworth, Herbert
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.



Horsbrugh, Florence
Hosbotham, Sir Samuel
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Captain Elliston and Lieut.Colonel


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Runge, Norah Cecil
Sir Walter Smiles.

Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Short title, commencement, and extent.)

(1) This Act may be cited as the Dog Racecourse (Licensing) Act, 1933, and shall come into operation on the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-three.

(2) This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.—[Mr. Hacking.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

12.42 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The proposed new Clause is submitted in place of Clauses 6 and 7 which I shall, later, ask the House to omit from the Bill. It combines the functions of those two Clauses. At the same time it alters the Short Title so as to bring it into conformity with the long Title. The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) a short time ago inferred that this was to be a big alteration in the Bill but it is really nothing of the kind because, as he will see, the object of the Bill is described as being "to provide for the licensing of dog racing courses." That is laid down in the long Title. It is customary that the Short Title should conform to the long Title, purely for convenience of reference at a later date and people who are searching for an Act dealing with the licensing of dog racing courses are more likely to find it under the Short Title "Dog Racecourse (Licensing) Act" than under the
Short Title "Dog Racing (Local Option) Act."
This proposed new Clause also fixes the date on which the Measure is to come into operation as 1st October, 1933. The reason is that if the Bill becomes an Act it cannot receive the Royal Assent until, probably, July. In August and September most local authorities are in recess and, as a certain amount of administrative work will be necessary before the Act could be used, it is desirable that it should not come into operation sooner than 1st October. I should mention in passing that this provision does not affect the moratorium Clause. The moratorium only applies to dog racecourses which were being used before 4th December, 1932, and the fact of 1st October being the date when the Act is to come into operation, will not interfere with the moratorium provision. It is purely a question of drafting and convenience.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I want to ask whether it is your intention, Mr. Speaker, to call any Amendments relating to the licensing of tracks by other than local authorities. If it is your intention to call those Amendments, all of us, I think, would be agreeable to this proposed change in the Title. If, on the other hand, it is not proposed to call those Amendments, I think we ought to be quite honest and to retain the words "Local Option," so that the world should know definitely that for the first time in
history local option is to be applied to amusements in this country.

Mr. SPEAKER: I imagine the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is referring to the Amendment in his own name and in that of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) in Clause 1, page 1, line 10, to leave out the word "local" and to insert instead thereof the word "licensing"?

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: No, Sir. The Amendments which affect this particular issue are those in the name of the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy), entirely to alter the constitution of the licensing authority.

Mr. SPEAKER: Is that the Amendment in Clause 1, page 3, line 30?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The Amendment as set, forth in detail in the Schedule.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not propose to call that Amendment. I do not propose to call any Amendment which deals with a Dog Racing Control Board.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In those circumstances, I ask the House to reject this proposal of the Government to alter the Title of the Bill. I take the view that there is no reason why different principles should be applied to one amusement from those applied to any other amusement. The long Title of this Bill is a general licensing Title, but we shall have no opportunity of giving effect to provisions which come within the wider scope of that Title, because, quite naturally, the Report stage is not the time to introduce Amendments of that character. If the previous Motion had been carried, I think it would have been possible. If the Bill is to remain in fact a local option Bill, if one form of amusement, which I personally patronise very rarely, is to be subjected to a system which is entirely novel in the legislation of this country, let us be honest and say so. No one has suggested, for example, that football grounds should be subject to local option, or cricket grounds, or horse-race tracks, or golf courses, or tennis clubs. I happen to live on the other side of the River Thames from a very large football ground, and I can hear a mile away far more noise from that football ground than anything that comes from either of the three or four greyhound racing tracks that I have ever visited.
Therefore, if we establish a fundamental principle of a kind that we would not have contemplated but for the fact that a few rather undesirable promoters are trying to dump down tracks in quite unsuitable places, let us tell the world fairly and squarely that this Bill is not a Bill which complies with its long title, but one which complies with its new title. I think we shall not be acting honestly if we tell the world that this is a licensing Bill and refuse to tell the world that it is a local option Bill. I am very dubious of the right of my neighbours to control all my actions. We live in a civilised community, and we want a reasonable measure of control, but I hold the view that that tendency is spreading much too rapidly and that in due course we shall have a violent reaction to the present tendency to interfere with everybody and with everything. If this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, I want it to leave this Chamber accurately described, instead of in the misleading way in which it will be described if this new Clause is carried.

12.50 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: I want to oppose changing the title of the Bill. I put down various Amendments which I was told would be in order within the form of the long title, and I want to explain why I put down those Amendments. I have no objection at all to a local authority having a voice in the licensing of tracks, but I want to see the sport run cleanly, and properly controlled. Let me give the House an illustration. Would hon. Members, even with a wide stretch of imagination, believe that the local authority in whose area a racecourse was situated would be able to control the races that took place there better than would the Jockey Club? Local authorities may license with regard to amenities and traffic control, but they have no experience to control the sport as such. Every sport that we know of has a controlling authority that makes proper rules and regulations, and that is one of the reasons why I put down my Amendments, so that the public will get a square deal and fair play, and the sport will be carried on in accordance with the highest traditions governing British sport. In dog racing there are dogs that will be transferred from one course to another, so that one local authority will have no control over dogs in the area of another
authority. Therefore, I wish the House to consider whether in their view, although a local authority might have the power of licensing a track as such, another authority should not be set up to control the sport. I think that is highly desirable.

12.53 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I also wish to oppose this new Clause. Frankly, if I may say so without offence, the hypocrisy of this Clause is extremely undesirable. Local option is a well-known and well-defined phrase, and it has been one of the principles of the Liberal party for a great number of years, and one on which they have lost a number of general elections. It is a principle to which we in the Conservative party have always been, until now, unalterably opposed, and personally I am still opposed to it. But if this overwhelmingly Conservative House of Commons has been converted, having followed the great light of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. I. Foot), to the sacred principle that every petty little local authority should be allowed to interfere, almost without limit, with the lives of the inhabitants, then let us frankly say so, let the Government say so, let us call this thing what it is in fact, namely, a local option Bill, and, if that is the wish of the House, let us proceed to introduce a lot more such Bills under the same name. We were not elected to do it, we have always opposed it in principle, but if all that is to be changed, let us get on with it.
I cannot see under what circumstances the right hon. Gentleman can justify his new Clause. We have been told repeatedly that local option is absolutely inherent in the terms and principle of this Bill, that it is there because the promoters and supporters of the Bill believe that that is the way in which the thing should be dealt with. That is not a point of view which I hold. I respect it as a point of view, but why seek to cloak it? I hope we are not to think that my right hon. Friend does not want to go back to his constituents in Lancashire, and say, "Oh, of course, I have always opposed local option, and I regard it as wrong. It is true that I gave sympathetic consideration to a Bill which grants local option in respect of one of your amusements, but that was not really local option, that was licensing." When
the great Liberal party in those days—they were great numerically—introduced their various local option Bills in connection with the drink trade, they did not call them licensing Bills. They knew perfectly well that licensing had nothing in itself to do with local option and that you could licence without giving the power to anybody locally at all. They knew that the normal way to licence was through a central authority.
Why do the Government and the supporters of the Bill wish to camouflage their evil actions by changing the short Title of the Bill? This House is too often lately trying to pretend, possibly unconsciously, to the public outside that it is doing one thing when in point of fact it is doing something quite different. Rightly or wrongly, under the Bill as it stands we are introducing this much vexed question of local option for the first time, and hon. Members below the Gangway, if ever they are in a position to have power, will not forget this precedent. If I were in their position I should not. We are laying down a, precedent on a definite principle to which the majority of the House has always taken the strongest exception. I oppose it, but if we are to do it let us at least be honest and call it local option. I do not know what reasons may have actuated the right hon. Gentleman and the promoters in this change of policy, but I beg the House and the right hon. Gentleman not to try and hide behind the term "licensing." There can be no conceivable advantage in it. We know that the Bill is to give local authorities power to give licences, but the point of the Bill is not licensing. I would agree to that; there is not a Member who does not want to see tracks licensed, but the contentious point of the Bill which matters is the question of local option, and I hope that the House will reject this proposed new Clause.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman who is the promoter of the Bill will tell us what he thinks of it. After all, he has made a courageous stand for the principle of local option, and apparently, since he has done that, he believes in it. He has done a remarkable thing in getting the Bill up to Report stage, and he may get it through a House, the majority of which is
unalterably opposed to the spirit underlying it. It is a fine performance from a Parliamentary point of view. Does the hon. Member wish to camouflage his action under the term "licensing"? Is he ashamed of what he has done and ashamed to stand up openly and say that he believes in local option?

Sir W. SMILES: I have said so in regard to greyhounds.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Then is the hon. and gallant Member prepared to support this new Clause to cloak the intention of the Bill, an intention which he has nobly pursued, and to hide it behind the term "licensing"? I suggest that this proposed Clause is a piece of unnecessary humbug, that is it most undesirable, that it is showing the country that we are doing one thing which we would not have been elected to support and are calling it something else. I hope that on reflection the promoters of the Bill will say that this is not a course which the House should pursue and to which the great National Government should lend its support. They ought to stand up for straight honest dealing and carry out the magnificent example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who told us the truth about unemployment. We ought to tell the public the truth about this Bill. It is contrary to everything to which this party has ever set itself, to introduce this Bill, a poisonous Measure of local option, and it should be called what it in fact is, a Dog Racing (Local Option). Bill.

1 p.m.

Mr. WISE: I feel some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman in his endeavour to change the Title of the Bill because, as a fact, he has already changed almost the entire Bill, and both he and the promoters are pressing Amendments to change it further. It seems a pity, therefore, that it should be allowed to continue under the same Title which it had when it received the Second Reading. The only part of the Bill which received Second Reading which has survived is the principle of local option. We should therefore keep the Title unless the promoters would be willing, in order to justify the proposed new Title, to withdraw the Bill so as to admit of a proper discussion of what the licensing authority should be.
Some of us on this side of the House and some hon. Members on the other side have strong views as to how a dog-racing track should be licensed and controlled. I am sure that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) and myself are in agreement on some parts of this problem, although I think that we are not in agreement on anything else politically or otherwise.
There is on all sides of the House a general desire that dog racing should be properly controlled. There is also, I think, a desire that the wishes of the local authorities should not be ignored and that they should have a considerable say in how or when dog tracks should be started in their district. I suggest that the method laid down in this Bill is not the way to do it and is not likely to have any success in its attempt so to regulate it. Therefore, we must either allow ourselves to discuss a proper form of licensing, which means the withdrawal of this Bill, or we must restore the old Title of the Bill and, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) said, make it quite clear to the country that we are definitely saying that the sole licensing authority that will ever have any control of dog racing is the local authority; also that that control of the local authority will be so limited and circumscribed as to be useless, and that, in fact, dog racing will never have a chance of reaching a satisfactory state of affairs. If that is the intention of the Government and the promoters of the Bill, I think the original Title is best. For that reason I suggest that as a gesture of protest the House should reject the Amendment.

Sir W. SMILES: May I move "That the Question be now put?"

1.4 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am glad to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman's voice at last. I do not suppose there has been an occasion on which a more impassioned speech has been made than that which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont). I have been waiting to hear one of the promoters of the Bill oppose the new Clause and stand up for the name of the Measure they introduced. The result of my waiting was to hear an
abortive attempt to move the Closure. I understood earlier in the day that there were something like only 40 words of the original Bill remaining. Now the Under-Secretary comes along and tries to filch a few more away, so that there will be practically nothing left except "and's," "the's" and a few commas. I should have thought that such of the Members whose names are on the back of the Bill as are present to-day—most of them are absent—would at least have stood up in defence of the title. I am perfectly cognisant of the phrase about giving a dog a bad name, and I suppose it applies to dog Bills also. An hon. Friend says a question of principle is raised by this proposal to change the title of the Bill. As a "Dog Racing (Local Option) Bill," its principle would appear to be to get local option working on this form of amusement, whereas if we call it a licensing Bill the emphasis is transferred to the word "licence." I should have thought the Members of the party who are always proclaiming the beauties of local option would have risen to insist on those words being retained in the title. It would have been a little Liberal triumph—they had not too many in these days—to get through a Local Option Bill.

Mr. HACKING: The hon. and gallant Member says that by this new Clause I desire to alter the title of the Bill. I do not desire to do anything of the kind. The title of the Bill will remain exactly the same, but we think it will be for the convenience of hon. Members who in years to come may desire to find the Measure dealing with the licensing of dog tracks if we give it this short title. They will be able to find the Bill easier under the short title than under the longer title.

Captain CROOKSHANK: If we call it the "Dog Racecourse (Licensing) Act" I agree that it will come a little earlier in the alphabet, because "Li" comes before "Lo," and it may be easier for anyone to find it. The short title is that by which Bills are called in the popular and uninstructed world, though no doubt a, skilful expert like the right hon. Gentleman would not only know exactly where to find the Bill but would be able to expatiate at great length upon it—which is more than the promoters can. But the ordinary person when referring to this Bill, perhaps even
the people who are concerned with local government, certainly the Press, would say that it was a local option clog racing Bill, and to that extent I concede him his point if he wants it. What I have been arguing is that as the whole emphasis had been placed upon local option we should stick to those words in the description of the Bill, and I shall vote for keeping them in.
Really I did not rise to make these remarks at all, but to ask the Under-Secretary, who is the one person who has been vocal on behalf of this new Clause, to tell us a little more about it. He says that the change does not amount to very much, and that the chief effect of this new Clause and the consequential Amendments will be to turn round the order in which the short title and the reference to the Bill not applying to Northern Ireland appear. We now get the short title first and the reference to Northern Ireland second. A point also arises in connection with the date. He said that a certain amount of administrative work would be required to get the Bill into operation. A certain amount of administrative work generally implies a certain amount of expenditure. Has there been any estimate of the amount of that expenditure? Does he mean that some considerable expenditure will be involved, or merely that a lot of time will have to be given to doing nothing in particular and doing it very well. If there is to be any expenditure we ought to be told about it before we go any further. If not, why should not the Bill come into operation straight away? [Interruption.] I see, it is impossible.

Mr. HACKING: All I meant was that it could not come into operation before it passes. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with his Parliamentary experience, will realise that a Bill does not come into effect until it has received the Royal Assent.

Captain CROOKSHANK: It has not escaped my notice that the Bill will require the Royal Assent before it becomes an Act. Why should not the Bill come into effect as from the time when it receives the Royal Assent? If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman hopes the Bill will not come into effect until he gets further advice from the Royal Commission which the Government
have set up to deal with betting, then let us put in a much more remote date than October, in order that any legislation which may be required following the report of the Royal Commisison can be made to conform with this particular piece of legislation. From every point of view it seems to me that the 1st October is about the stupidest date which could have been chosen, though, as I am not particularly struck with the wisdom of this Bill, that is not a thing which a priori one would regard as unexpected. It is very distasteful to anyone who has been a loyal supporter of the Government, and particularly of the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State, to ask the House to reject anything which he puts before us, but I think it would be a sad piece of hypocrisy to change the Title of this Bill. It is a local option Bill. All the arguments have been on the question of local option; the arguments about licensing have always been ruled out of order. Mr. Speaker has said that he is not going to call any of the Amendments proposing alternative forms of control of licensing. That demolishes the whole ground work for saying it is a licensing Bill. The House gave it a Second Reading because it was a local option Bill, presumably, and as it has never been discussed as a licensing Bill it would he wrong that it should leave this House with any other description than that of a local option Bill. I hope the House, I will not say in its wrath, but as tenderly as it can, will reject the advice tendered by the right hon. Gentleman.

1.13 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: The hon. and gallant Member has told us that he would not care to be disloyal to the Government by voting against them on a recommendation put before the House on their behalf. I wish to assure him that there will be no question of that loyalty or disloyalty in connection with this Bill. It was never the desire of the Government to interfere unduly with Private Members' days. I am here to-day only to advise the House on what I think is the right method of procedure in certain cases. If the House in its wisdom decides that I am wrong, and if the majority of the House is against my views, then the Government will not interfere in any way. The
Government do not intend to put on their Whips for this or any other Amendment, and they never did intend to do so, and therefore my hon. and gallant Friend can vote exactly as he likes with out any guilty feeling in his conscience.

Captain CROOKSHANK: If we carry this Amendment it will not cast any discredit on the right hon. Gentleman himself in higher quarters?

Mr. HACKING: I can also give my hon. and gallant Friend that full assurance.

1.15 p.m.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: I rise to oppose the proposal which is now made to change the title by which the Bill would become known to the general public. I have always understood that in order to obtain a licence for something you have to fulfil certain conditions, whether it is a licence for a motor-car, a public-house, or whatever it may be. There are important provisions which must be provided in respect of dog racing tracks if they are to be properly run, but there is no indication that the Bill as it stands will give local licensing authorities any power to control the running of dog tracks. If that power were included in the Bill, it would be the first time that any form of sport had had to be run under rules and regulations imposed by any local or public authority, and it would not be possible for me to move the various Amendments which stand in my name dealing with what I consider to be necessary for properly regulating dog racing tracks. The only difference that is proposed to be made in the title is in one word, between "dog racing local option" and "dog racing licensing." Surely, that is not such a difficult matter as it would appear for those who in future will want to find out what Bill has been passed in connection with dog racing. The new title would convey an utterly wrong impression, certainly to my constituents, as to what the Bill really stands for.
The Bill makes no regulation of any kind and imposes no conditions which I consider essential in order that dog racing tracks may be operated in a straightforward and proper manner. There is nothing to prevent the owners of tracks doing what they like when they like, or to prevent a large number of dog racing
tracks being started. It is possible that local authorities may be found close to each other who may believe that by opening a new dog racing track, even though it is not wanted, they will help trade and bring people into their districts. I consider it essential that there should he some supreme authority not biased by any local opinion but considering only what is best for the public.
Even on the question of local option this Bill is not perfectly fair. Many hon. Members will agree with me that local authorities do not always represent the view of the bulk of the population over whose destinies they preside. In the case of the cinema, it was required that there should be a referendum to the bulk of the people, many of whom unfortunately do not realise their obligations to vote in municipal elections in order to see that they are properly governed. The referendum gave them an opportunity of expressing their opinion. Nothing of the kind is included in this Bill. A local authority may say either "Yes" or "No" when, if there were a referendum, the bulk of the population might entirely disagree with the view expressed by the local authority. It is a great pity that this incomplete Bill deals neither with local option nor with regulations for putting all those things right which many of us believe are wrong with dog racing tracks. There is nothing in the Bill to do good to anyone; the Bill is going to do harm all round. The proposal for the new title is entirely deceptive, as it would lead the people to believe that we had done something to regulate dog racing and the way that it is operated, and for that reason I oppose the proposal.

1.20 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am very gravely concerned as to what the Government are doing in this matter. I was delighted and relieved to hear the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill say that it would not go against himself or anyone else if we—

Mr. HACKING: This is not my Bill, and I am not in charge of the Bill. It is a private Member's Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) is in charge of the Bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) is not here now, and the right hon.
Gentleman is in charge of the Government Amendments to the Bill. As such, the right hon. Gentleman is the responsible spokesman for the nebulous position of the Government on the Bill. May I call him "the spokesman for the nebulous position which the Government takes up"? I want to know what the Government are playing at? The right hon. Gentleman said that he was trying to make the Bill rather shorter, but, if he looks at what is happening, he will see that he is taking Clause 6 and cutting it out, taking Clause 7 and cutting that out, putting in a new Clause which has something to do with Clause 7 but putting it into much longer and unnecessarily long words, and then putting the old Clause 6 back into the new Clause as Sub-section (2) which says:
This Act shall not apply to Northern Ireland.
Why do you want to do all that? I should have thought there was a simpler way. My understanding of Parliamentary procedure is that in trying to get a Bill through quickly you should never put anything unnecessary on the Order Paper. Are not these rather unnecessary Amendments, and would not the Government save time if they chucked their hands in? That would save all the supplementary Amendments which come in afterwards. I am trying to help everyone in this matter. I am fairly innocent in Parliamentary procedure, but I have heard of people who put down Amendments in an indiscriminate way.
I want to know why we are not extending this Bill to Northern Ireland? I cannot make out why Northern Ireland should be left out. We are applying it to Scotland and Wales, and to other important parts of the country like Devon and Cornwall? Why should Northern Ireland be left out? It is a great insult to Northern Ireland that it should be left out of these good things.

Captain ALEXANDER BROWNE: Northern Ireland would be much relieved if Northern Ireland were left out.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That observation did not reach many of us here, but I have no doubt that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give us the position later. I stand up for the rights of Northern Ireland, and I want to see no weakening of
those. This is a very important Clause. My hon. Friend who sits for Eddisbury (Mr. R. Russell) is somewhat in disagreement with his colleagues as to the correct wording. I have an enormous admiration for his ability, without which I am sure he dould not have made that speech earlier in the day. I want to ask him whether he agrees with this important change, or is he the person who is at the back of the controversy Has he been to the Government and persuaded them to move this Clause, in order to cook the goose of the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn? I do not want to accuse him of these things, but he ought to make his position clear and above-board, as I feel sure he will. It really is rather a tragedy that the Government should come down—I must be careful what I say, because I see that the Patronage Secretary is here—with this reversing policy. I do not like to see the Government changing things round in this way. I think it is perfectly monstrous, in the case of a Bill like this, when the Government, or the spokesmen on behalf of certain proposals —I have forgotten the exact definition that I gave just now—come and do this kind of thing. It makes matters additionally difficult for Members in the same position as myself, who, while taking an interest in the Bill, were not on the Committee upstairs.
We simply do not know where the proposers of the Bill are on this matter. They seem to accept something occasionally, and at other times they do not. Of course, we have great confidence in those whose names are on the back of the Bill, but I think it ought to be made clear whether this is really a proposal of theirs or not. We have not had any help on this matter, even from those on the Front Bench, who are generally so apt at explaining a position in such a way that, if it is hopelessly confused almost beyond human understanding, they make it so confused that no human being at all can understand it. On this occasion I, at any rate, am quite unable to determine my position in regard to this matter, although, perhaps if the right hon. Gentleman who is actually making this proposal should find his way into the Lobby, I might try and follow him, but he does not seem to be very clever at getting there this morning.

1.27 p.m.

Captain A. EVANS: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) ought to feel very much indebted to the Under-Secretary for the gallant manner in which he is doing work which really ought to be done by my hon. Friend himself. I rise to oppose the alteration of the Short Title. I ventured to add my name to certain Amendments which were put down by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson), because, in view of the fact that some time back the House had been given an opportunity of discussing alternative methods of betting in connection with greyhound racing, I naturally assumed that the House would also be afforded an opportunity of discussing alternative licensing bodies. I am one of those who feel that local authorities are not the right people to lay down strict rules and maintain certain standards of racing in this country. I think that the views of local authorities should be sought as far as regards amenities in their own districts, but I venture to think that there are not many local authorities in this country who would welcome the throwing of an issue of this kind into the cockpit of their local elections.
Many Members of the House will have received this morning a circular from the County Councils Association dealing with various Amendments affecting local option and licensing bodies, and, if I may refer them to page 2 of that circular, they will observe there, in the fifth paragraph, that the position in which we find ourselves, in view of certain Amendments on the Order Paper which I gather have been ruled to be in order, will be that it will be possible for no less than 1,717 licensing bodies to be set up to consider the question of applications which may be submitted by interested parties in various local centres, while even at the best, in the event of those Amendments not being accepted, no fewer than 145 authorities will have the "say-so" in regard to these applications. As far as I can see, we are speedily getting back to a position from which, in other instances, we are anxious to escape. As regards local option in connection with the drink question, we have the absurd position of being able to obtain a drink on one side of Oxford Street at 11 p.m., while on the other side we cannot obtain
it after 10.30. One can readily imagine the trouble and anxiety which local authorities have to confront when they are called upon to give their decision on these important matters.
I am very surprised that on this question of the short Title of the Bill we have not heard from some of the Welsh Liberal Members of Parliament, because they know that in certain parts of the Principality the name of local option has only to be mentioned to call forth that vigorous criticism which is so characteristic of people who hail from Wales, and I am indeed surprised that, in view of the battle which confronts its in the constituencies, they have not risen in their places to support my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham. After all, it is very easy to misunderstand a short Title of "Licensing Bill," whereas in the minds of the Welsh people there is not the slightest doubt at any time as to what is meant by local option. I think it is agreed by Members in all quarters of the House that the Bill as it has come from the Committee has been altered in many important respects, and, in order to countenance that alteration, my right hon. Friend has come down to the House this morning to say that, to bring the alterations into line, we must alter the short Title. I venture to think that it is not strictly honest to alter the Title in this way, which would lend itself to such serious misrepresentation in the constituencies, and particularly in the part of the world a division of which I have the honour to represent in this House. For this reason, if for no others, I hope most sincerely that the House will reject this proposed alteration of the short Title.

1.31 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am rather suspicious of this attempt to alter the Title of the Bill. According to the Title, the Bill itself is a Local Option Bill, and Clause 7 of the Bill as it comes from the Committee says:
This Act may be cited as the Dog Racing (Local Option) Act, 1933.
I say that I am suspicious—though I do not say that there is any ulterior motive —of what is going to happen if the alteration proposed by the Under-Secretary is made. Standing first on the Order Paper this morning we have a proposed new Clause in the name of the Secretary of
State for Scotland, which involves a large number of legal issues. If the Bill is now to be given the Title of a Licensing Bill instead of a Local Option Bill, that will be the Title quoted before the local authorities. In paragraph (f) of the Secretary of State for Scotland's proposed new Clause we find a comparison between what is going to be done in Scotland with what is being done in England under Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 of the Bill. Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 of the Bill states that:
The provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts with respect to appeals shall apply with the necessary modifications to an appeal under this section as if the decision of the local authority were an order of a court of summary jurisdiction.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and, 40 Members being present—

1.35 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: In the Scottish Clause there is a reference to Clause 2 (2) of the Bill. That Sub-section states:
The provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts with respect to appeals shall apply with the necessary modifications to an appeal under this section as if the decision of the local authority were an order of a court of summary jurisdiction, and the court of quarter sessions may confirm or reverse the decision of the local authority or may grant the licence subject to any such condition as might have been imposed by the local authority; and any such licence granted by the court of quarter sessions shall have the same effect as if it had been granted by the local authority.
The Amendment of the Under-Secretary of State brings this to an entirely different issue from that set out in the Title of the Bill, which we are told is to remain the real Title. The Sub-section that I have read out entirely destroys the short Title. It means that any court can give a licence to a dog-racing track without the authority of the local council. I can now understand why the Under-Secretary is seeking to omit the Clause. In order to make this a proper local option Bill, we ought to have the words, "A Bill to provide for the licensing of dog racecourses by local authorities." The Bill, as it stands, is not a local option Bill. It gives power to local authorities, but it also gives power to local courts, justices of the peace, and sheriffs in Scotland, to hear appeals against decisions by local authorities, and they can, if they think fit, override the decisions of the
local authorities, and grant licences. This, therefore, ceases to be a local authorities licensing Bill, and that is why the Under-Secretary wants to alter Clause 10, leaving out the words "local option." The Bill, as introduced, was a Dog Racing (Local Option) Bill. It was argued out before the Committee under that Title, and it comes down to the House under that Title, and we ought to continue with the Title that it originally had and, if there is to be any alteration, alter the Title by inserting the words "by local authorities."

1.43 p.m.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: References have been made to the presence of the Tinder-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and, certainly, any Amendment moved by a representative of perhaps the oldest office of State deserves our most careful consideration. The presence of a representative of that office shows that this is considered an important Bill for the maintenance of peace in England and the care and well-being of His Majesty's subjects. It is a tribute which we must recognise to the importance of this matter, for the Englishman is a strange being, composed of two principles, which he manages to harmonise and, when he is doing one, he despises the other. He believes in work and he believes in play. If you interfere with his work, a national Government may be perturbed, but, if you interfere with his play, any Government may be perturbed. We are discussing an amusement which is highly popular and which calls for some governmental regulation. I am glad that in the question of the Title, at any rate, in this Amendment the word "dog" is left, for we are discussing dogs of all kinds and all habits. There is no specific recommendation in the Bill that only one type of dog may be raced.
I am a little disturbed that the word "racing" should be left out. It is surely unphilosophic and unsound that the principal purpose of the Bill should be left out. Racecourses do not exist to grow roses or cabbages. We are discussing the licensing of an actual process, and the racecourse itself is only secondary to the sport which is the subject of this afternoon's Debate. We are also asked to change the title from "Local Option" to "Licensing." There is nothing more
important than that the spirit of local option should be maintained, and you do not do it, even if you intend to maintain it in the Bill, by taking it out of the title and replacing it by a title familiar to licensed victuallers and to brewers but not very familiar to those who are accustomed to sport in its cleanest and best aspects.
But I have no destructive criticism to make without suggesting alternatives. If you look into the Bill there are many better points which might be included in the title if local option is to go. For instance, we are asked in the Bill to limit the days and hours upon which the premises may be used. In other words, it is a Bill of some interest to the Ministry of Labour, and might be entitled, "Dog Racing (Conservation of Hours) Bill." That would be quite sound. Then the Home Office is probably interested in fires. It is one of its official legal responsibilities. This Bill professes to give protection to His Majesty's subjects against their untimely end by fire in ill-constructed racecourses. If this Bill were entitled the "Dog Racing (Prevention of Premature Death by Fire) Bill," there would be something which was sound in intention and better than licensing of racing, for which the Bill is brought forward. The Ministry of Health are intrested in the Bill, for the populace are to be drawn to the racecourses by countless thousands and may be a source of epidemic infection, and I am pleased to see in the Bill that we have to provide adequate sanitary accommodation. So that the Bill might be entitled, "Dog Racing (Promotion of the Health of Attendants) Bill." It would give some indication that we are entering on the dawn of an Health Age where we not only inspect our factories and workshops for health and sanitary arrangements, but we shall also expect the amusement of dog racing, and, later, football and cricket, conducted under proper hygienic and sanitary conditions. It is very important that the ancient Christian traditions in this country should be preserved, and no one knows what might happen to England if dog racing took place upon certain sacred days. Therefore you might omit "Local Option" from the title and say instead, Dog Racing (in Accordance with Historic Religious Traditions) Bill, and that
would explain that in future dog racing should not take place on Christmas Day, Good Friday, or Sunday.
There is a laudable provision inserted in the Bill to which no reference, unhappily, is made in the title. If you turn to page 5 of the Bill you will see how many times the word "constable" occurs. The protection of His Majesty's constables is worthy of the attention of the Home Office, and I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary is present this afternoon to support the Clause that any person who obstructs a constable in the exercise of his powers shall suffer. In other words, you might have "Dog Racing (Protection of Constables) Bill." That is a strong indication as to why on a Friday afternoon, on a, beautiful day, we are sacrificing our health to discuss the protection of constables who are carrying out their normal duties on racecourses. It would be deplorable if at any place where land could be bought the amenities of the neighbourhood might be destroyed by the untimely erection of dog race courses. The maintenance of amenities has been considered by all of us in the Housing and Town Planning Bill, and it was so important that we sacrificed many long nights in discussing that Bill. That work has not been forgotten, for in page 3 we understand that the Bill will conserve the amenities of neighbourhoods and of premises. Therefore, I am confident were the Bill to be called "Dog Racing (Maintenance of Amenities) Bill" it would be an even better indication of the scope of the Bill before us.
It may be in the opinion of some Members that it is undesirable for this country to go to the dogs. I understand that later on the Order Paper we may be invited instead to go to the Divorce Court, arid perhaps in the dispositions of the High Gods who look after our deliberations it is considered better far this country that we should go to the dogs even on a Friday afternoon rather than to the Divorce Court. It is because of those many reasons that I look with some apprehension upon the Amendment which has been proposed in the name of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on a Bill which has much to recommend it, inasmuch as it conserves so many good principles, and those prin-
ciples are not referred to in the Title a the Bill.

1.51 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: I feel that it is almost time that someone rose to support the proposal of the Government, and it is particularly fitting that I should do so, because I am afraid that I have been so often unable to support various Measures coming from the Government, and for one reason or another it gives me immense pleasure to support the right hon. Gentleman in the alteration of the Title of the Bill. I think that, there is every reason for it. If you look at the Bill, you find in almost every other line the word "licence." The various authorities which are to grant the licences, whether the local authority, the county council or the London County Council, are all mentioned in the Bill. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. He said that he would give all the help he could. The word "licence" certainly does indicate the licensed victualler's licence, except that it does not indicate a licence to purvey drink. Would it not be wise to make it perfectly clear that it is not intended in any way to give the local authorities the power to license drink on the racecourse as well as to licence the racecourse itself? There are two or three Clauses in the Bill which leave it very doubtful as to the powers of the local authorities. I am not at all sure that in granting those licences they may not make a rule that no betting should take place. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to assure the House that that could not be possible, and that in granting a licence the question of betting should not come in. We have laws of the country, several rather confusing statutes, about betting, but we are not certain that the word "licensing" when it comes in the title of the Bill does not mean that the local authority should have power of withholding a licence in the event of their objecting to betting, or bookmakers or the totalisator or whatever it may be.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I would remind the hon, and gallant Member that I do not think I can allow the Under-Secretary to answer a query of that kind on this particular Clause. It must come on some other Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel APPL1N: I realise the fact that I have gone rather outside the
Amendment. The other point I wish to raise is the question of Northern Ireland. This country should not in any way interfere with dog racing across the Channel. It may be that when licences granted here locally for dog racing are refused under the Bill owners may take their dogs across to Northern Ireland and there would be able to race without a licence. I think that it is very wise, and I support the Government in their desire, to exempt Northern Ireland from the provisions of this somewhat complicated and difficult Bill. There is one further small point, and that is the date on which the Bill is to come into force. The 1st of October is a peculiar date for several reasons. I do not object to it in itself but I would remind the Under-Secretary that the House will not be sitting on 1st October. Is it wise that an Act of Parliament should come into force at a time when the House is not sitting? Moreover, the 1st October is the date on which licences are granted for the shooting of pheasants. Probably no racing will take place during that period. I hope the hon. Member will explain why he has chosen the 1st October, which is associated in my mind with pheasants and not with dog racing. In changing the Title of the Bill from local option to licensing, he is making it perfectly clear that there is no local option in this Bill in respect of dog racing. I support the Government in the change of Title, because it will make it clear to the public that greyhound racing courses will be licensed, but not by local authorities.

1.56 p.m.

Mr. CLARRY: The House is placed in a dilemma. It is in a state of confusion as to what the Bill means, or what the Amendment means or what anything else means in relation to the Bill. Some hon. Members have asked if the Bill has any reference to any other licensing matters.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: May I warn the hon. Member that he cannot go into the whole question of the Bill on this Amendment?

Mr. CLARRY: If the alteration of the Title of the Bill is going to give it a wider scope and a proper meaning within the reason that a number of us have for controlling dog racing, I am certainly in favour of it, but if it is merely a formal alteration and does not provide for such matters as proper control, and does not deal with the most burning matter in connection with dog racing, namely, totalisators and bookmakers, which is the real matter at the bottom of dog racing in this country, I am not in favour of altering the Title. If it is going to be confined purely to local option, merely allowing the local authority to exercise their authority in connection with dog racing in their own locality, I think it is a mistake to proceed with the Bill in its present form. The feeling, as far as I can ascertain it throughout the country is that dog racing generally should be under some proper controlling body as well as the local authorities in any local areas.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing the Bill and not the new Clause.

Mr. CLARRY: I am sorry. I thought that you would permit discussion of the Bill generally as being appropriate to the new Title. If that is not so, all I can say is, that it seems to me to be a foolish thing to alter the Title if you are not going to alter the body of the Bill itself. The original Title was one of local option, but a change is being proposed and a sterner local option is being reimposed, although the Title is being altered. That seems to me to be an absurdity. I should like the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), a former Under-Secretary to the Home Department in the Labour Government, to give us his opinion on the question of altering the Title and strengthening the Bill in an opposite direction.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 116.

Division No. 150.]
AYES.
[2.1 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Bower, L[...]eut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)


Applln, L[...]eut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Browne, Captain A. C.
Campbell-Johnrton. Malcolm


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Campbell, Edward Ta[...]well (Bromley)
Carver, Major William H.


Clarke, Frank
Mabane, William
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Clayton, Or. George C.
Maltland, Adam
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Cook, Thomas A.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Selley, Harry R.


Cooke, Douglas
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Crossley, A. C.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Shaw, Captain William T. (For[...]ar)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Munro, Patrick
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Spens, William Patrick


Davies, Maj- Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Sutcliffe, Harold


Duggan, Hubert John
Pearson, William G.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Petherick, M.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, B[...]ston)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Goff, Sir Park
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Goldle, Noel B.
Rankin, Robert
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Grimston, R. V.
Ray, Sir William
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Womersley, Walter James


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H,
Reld, David D. (County Down)



Heilgers. Captain F. F. A,
Remer, John R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Horsbrugh, Florence
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Mr. Levy and Mr. Wise.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, William Shephard


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Gower, Sir Robert
Nail, Sir Joseph


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
North. Captain Edward T.


Apsley, Lord
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Nunn, William


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wol[...]e
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Penny, Sir George


Banfield, John William
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Price, Gabriel


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Harris, Sir Percy
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hirst, George Henry
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Briant, Frank
Holdsworth, Herbert
Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hornby, Frank
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Burnett, John George
Jenkins, Sir William
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
John, William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Clarry, Reginald George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Soper, Richard


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lawson, John James
Storey, Samuel


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Leckle, J. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Curry, A. C.
Lewis, Oswald
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Daggar, George
Liddail, Walter S.
Summersby, Charles H.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Llewellin, Major John J
Tate, Mavis Constance


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Thompson, Luke


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Thome. William James


Denville, Alfred
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Dickle, John P.
Lymington, Viscount
Wells, Sydney Richard


Dobble, William
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O, (Ayr)
Weymouth, Viscount


Donner, P. W.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Edwards, Charles
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams. Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Emmott, Charles E. G, C.
Magnay, Thomas
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. sir M.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)



Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles




and Mr. Elliston.

2.10 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs in moving this Amendment, and in reply to various hon. Members who were critical of it, made it perfectly plain to the House that the Bill was not considered a workable Bill unless this proposed new Clause were accepted, is the House not entitled to find out, either from the promoter of the Bill or the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the Clause that has just been de-
feated, what action the promoter intends to take, or what attitude the Government will now take up, since the alteration of title, which they believed 'was so necessary, has been defeated.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member's question is a point of Order.

Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate in order to give the Under-Secretary an opportunity to reply.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member might amend the form of his Motion to "That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned."

Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."

2.12 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUM0NT: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I would like to ask the promoters of the Bill what steps they propose to take with regard to this matter. I do not think that in my short experience in the House of Commons I have even known a Bill, or Debate, which has landed in such inextricable confusion. As the House is aware, this is one of the few Fridays allowed for conducting private Members' business. We have now, at ten minutes past two, just negatived the second of the new Clauses on the Paper, and we have still a most important and vital new Clause to consider. We have a matter of one hour and three-quarters before the Debate automatically comes to an end. We shall not then have got through the important Amendments to Clause 1, and the many others which follow on the other Clauses.
No hon. Member of this House, having in view the great interest taken in this matter, and the matters which are to come before us—matters of great principle and deserving most careful and serious attention—can possibly state that there is any likelihood of approaching the termination of the Bill, or even of Clause 1, at to-day's sitting. The Third Reading is naturally deferred, since we have already recommitted certain Clauses of the Bill, in certain respects, to the Standing Committee. The Third Reading has to await the report of that Committee. It has been made perfectly clear that no Member of the House is satisfied with the state of the Bill. I suggest to the promoter that, in view of the feeling of the House, and in view of the innumerable Amendments, he should consider the position and decide whether it is worth the time of the House to proceed with the Bill in this manner. I would suggest that there are various consultations he could hold. He might prefer the new Committee to which reference has been made.
The hon. Member would be well advised to withdraw his Bill. It will never become law. I wish to support the Motion that further consideration of the Bill be postponed, and I hope very much that the hon. Member will see that he has made a very gallant attempt to deal with a very important subject. The whole House is with him, but practically the whole House is agreed that in some particular or another the way proposed in the Bill is not the way to deal with it. Having ventilated the subject, I think the promoter might well save the time and trouble of the House by gracefully withdrawing the Bill, the discussion on which cannot, obviously, reach a conclusion.

2.15 p.m.

Sir W. SMILES: I do not wish to accept the Adjournment, because there is a great feeling about this dog racing in all parts of the country. I get numerous letters not only from the North but from other places. One lady wrote from Bournemouth. After all, we have had a most instructive Debate to-day. It is not every day that this House has the privilege and honour of listening to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) five times. I think it is a red letter day in the history of the House. The hon. Member who has just spoken has confessed to being in a state of confusion. Well, if this confuses him, all I can say is that he is very easily confused. I can see now the picture of the completed Bill emerging from this House as I saw it when I introduced the Bill. I am prepared to accept several useful Amendments, and, as for the name, I pay no attention to a name. I, myself, get confused about dog racing names. You have the Greyhound Racing Society and the Greyhound Racing Association, Limited, and various other things which are licensed and unlicensed tracks, and it is very easy for anyone to be confused about a name. I think a defeat over a minor issue of that kind does not express the feeling of this country as to the necessity for licensing dog tracks. At any rate, if this Bill does not go forward, I hope that those people who have opposed it will have placed outside their houses an unlicensed track which will run on every day of the week and on Sunday afternoon, and I shall be very glad to
take a share in any track that is going to be put alongside the home of the hon. Member for Aylesbury.

2.18 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I do not think that the House would be treating this Bill fairly if it arrived at a decision without a word in a little more serious tone. What is the position? There are local authorities in this country who are very desirous that Parliament should come to their aid, and Parliament really is not doing its duty to the local authorities. Members who represent divisions where dog-racing tracks have not yet been set up, will find themselves compelled, as some of us are compelled, by pressure of public opinion to take up a very serious attitude towards this problem. Let us see what the position is. This Bill is opposed not because of the small details—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must not make this Motion an occasion for a complete discussion of the Bill as on Second Reading. It is laid down strictly in the Standing Orders that on a Motion of this kind the discussion must be strictly confined to the Motion which is, "That further consideration of the Bill be adjourned."

Mr. DAVIES: I will try to keep my remarks within that Ruling. I am still of opinion that the two points upon which the House is divided can be dealt with in this Bill, which I hope will be allowed to proceed even if it be not concluded to-day. I am absolutely satisfied, in spite of opposition to the Measure, that the decision already taken in the Division Lobby to-day indicates one thing clearly, namely, that this Bill, if allowed to proceed, will be so amended as to admit of giving the local authorities absolute power, without right of appeal to Quarter Sessions, to determine whether they should have a dog racing track or not. I say, therefore, that the House should not stultify itself by carrying the Motion moved by my hon. Friend. The House ought to express its will on those two fundamental points. If this Motion be carried now, the Bill will be practically dead, and I see no opportunity for some time to come to secure the rights of local authorities in this connection. I appeal, therefore, to the House to take a sensible view, to
proceed with the Measure and to alter it in those two fundamentals about which, I am sure, we should have a majority in favour of our point of view. If it cannot be done to-day, I am sure it will be done on a future Friday.

2.21 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I want to add one word only, and it is entirely in accordance with the Ruling just given. I appeal to the House to continue the consideration of this Measure, because I am concerned with the respect in which this House is held by the great public outside. There has been a very strong demand for a Measure of this kind, and if we were to accept the Motion that our discussion on this Bill should be adjourned after a single small Amendment in the Title, which has been allowed to occupy more than an hour, has been dealt with it will be clear to the public outside that the vested interests in this sport, or industry, or whatever it ought to be called, are so powerful that they have been allowed to kill discussion in this House of the great principles on which this Bill is founded. I do not want that to go forth outside, as it would be bound to do if the machinations of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) and his friends were to be so successful as to secure the adjournment of the Debate at this stage. I hope, therefore, the House will not accept the Motion.

2.22 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: Before a decision is reached on the Motion now before the House, it would, I think, be desirable for the Government position to be stated. Throughout the whole of the Committee stage, and throughout the whole of the Report stage up to the present, I hope I have made it abundantly clear that the Government are not interfering in any way with this Bill. Their great anxiety from the commencement was that if the House desired to have a Bill of this character, the Government would try to make it a workable Measure—a Measure which would actually operate successfully. That has been the Government's sole desire. It is fairly obvious, I think, from the Debate we have had to-day, that the majority of the House do not care to have this Bill placed upon the Statute Book. That being the case, I repeat that the
Government are not going to press the Measure. This is a Private Members' day, and private Members should be free to vote as they like. There has been no desire on the part of the Government to take away that freedom from Members. The object of the Clause just defeated was solely to make this a workable Clause. It is obvious that we must have in the Bill a date when the Bill should come into operation. The suggestion was made by the Government that the Bill should come into operation on 1st October. I believe that was a reasonable suggestion. The Government do not press the matter any further. So far as the decision of the House goes with regard to this Motion, if they do not desire to proceed further with the Bill, they can vote in that direction. On the other hand, if they desire the Bill to go forward, the Government in the future, as they have done in the past, will do their best to make the Measure a successful and workable one.

2.25 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: With regard to the Title of the Bill, on which the Under-Secretary laid so much importance, does he not consider that a change of Title is necessary either now or at a later stage?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a question which arises on the Motion before the House.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. The Clause that was defeated contained an alteration of Title.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are not now discussing the Clause which was defeated, but a Motion that further consideration of the Bill be adjourned.

2.27 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The Motion has been moved, I presume, because the hon. Member who moved it takes the view that it is now impossible to go forward with the Bill, having regard to all the circumstances. The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) referred to the decision recently taken as a decision on a minor point. But he cannot have read the Motion on which we recently voted. That Motion related not only to the Title but to the date of the Bill's operation. Even if it had not been passed a state of confusion would
have arisen, because the draftsmanship of the Bill, both official and unofficial, is so unsatisfactory as to create the anomaly that the moment the Bill becomes law no greyhound racing can take place without a licence, and that you cannot get a licence without first giving 21 days' notice. You cannot apply for notice under the Act until the Act is in operation. Accordingly, if we go forward with the Bill there will be a hiatus of at least three weeks before any racing will be permitted on any track, because the Bill makes dog racing illegal without a licence.

2.29 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Everyone will be agreed on one thing, and that is that the Under-Secretary who has spoken on behalf of the Government, has conducted a very difficult task with the greatest possible tact and courtesy. It would not be fair if that was not said this afternoon. As to adjournment of the Debate, I say definitely that I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) say that he would go on with the Bill. I do not think there is anything in the point made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). On this occasion he is not quite seized on what is a very delicate point. The position of the Bill is quite right, and the hon. Member need not worry. If he lies down and keeps quiet, the Bill will go on. My reason against adjourning the Debate is that the Bill has had a good deal of time spent on it in Committee, and we have spent a good deal of time on it to-day. There are eagle eyes watching how we use private Members' time, and if we quite lightly adjourn the Debate now the Government might seize private Members' time on another occasion; there might be a report made that we were not getting on with our job. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont). He and I think alike on certain matters. In its more progressive forms his mind approximates closely to mine. In other ways he has reactionary tendencies, when he gets into alliance with Front Bench Socialists. I ask him to use his great influence with the Socialist party in the interests of private Members generally. Let us get on with the other business.

2.33 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I want to give an opportunity to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) to consider if he cannot withdraw some of the words he used just now. He urged that the Motion should not be passed because if passed it would go out that vested interests in the dog racing world had been able to persuade Parliament to their way of thinking. His words were to that effect. I wish on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) to say that he has nothing in the world to do with any vested interest in dog racing. I may add that I have not either, and I am perfectly certain that that statement applies to all hon. Members who have been opposing this Bill on a variety of grounds, some because they dislike local option, some because they think the Bill has not been properly considered, and so on. If there are such vested interests, they have certainly not been voiced either by the hon. Member for Aylesbury or myself.

2.35 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: As the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has made an appeal to me I will say at once that I phrased my remarks unfortunately and if there is considered to be, in what I said, any implication that any hon. Members of this House have been actuated or influenced in the course which they have taken by vested interests, I at once withdraw. All that I wished to indicate was that, if the course proposed by this Motion were adopted by the House, it would be in effect a victory for those who are interested—not people in this House, but those who are interested in dog racing as an industry or whatever you may call it. I wish to suggest that it would create the very unfortunate impression that we had allowed ourselves, perhaps for other reasons, to be made eats' paws of—for that is what it would come to—and that those people who are opposed to any restriction at all and who wish to be free to place dog racing tracks wherever they choose, had won the day.

2.37 p.m.

Captain ELLISTON: Quite apart from the important interests of private Members which have been referred to by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) I hope the House will refuse
the Adjournment of this Debate. This is a matter of extreme urgency. Not only have we spent much time upon it in Committee upstairs, but the proposal has been considered by and received the general approval of representative bodies of local authorities such as the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations. These bodies are very intimately concerned with local administration and their opinion deserves the serious consideration of this House. With my colleague in the representation of Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) I have good reason to know what a burning question this is to local authorities. We had our own experience in Blackburn where complete strangers, with no local connections, suddenly descended on the town and marked out an area for a track without "by your leave."
Only a few months ago the House was intensely interested in an attack on the amenities of Carlton House Terrace and the "Times," day after day, was full of letters on that subject. I was no more impressed by those letters than by the very pathetic petitions of the working-class residents in the immediate neighbourhood of that greyhound track at Blackburn and by the disappointment and amazement of those people when they learned that they could get no redress and no protection from their own local authority. In view of facts like that, it is necessary that this House, even if we cannot complete the discussion of the Bill to-day, should show the local authorities that we realise what a serious grievance this is. At the time when this Bill was presented, not only were there as many as 187 of these tracks in operation but more than 50 were on the point of being opened or in course of organisation with the sole thought that the totalisator would be available for them. The moment there is any prospect that they will be able to instal totalisators at these courses, tracks will be opened all over the country. Much depends on early action by this House if we are to prevent such a thing happening. It is all very well for gentlemen from remote agricultural districts to tell us that this is not an urgent matter but I think it would be a subject of vigorous protest if, even the ducks and cattle of Aylesbury were to be exposed to floodlights and the shouts of bookies every evening, as the children are in the crowded towns where these tracks have been established. I
feel that the House ought to continue this very useful discussion, in order that the country may know how we regard this matter.

2.40 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: It is said that a house which is divided against itself must fall and hon. Members on the bench in front of me are divided upon this question, because the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) wants this Debate adjourned and the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) does not. Both represent the type of area referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Captain Elliston). I represent a similar kind of area. We have had a dog racing track dumped down in the middle of a thickly populated district. I have been a party to the protests made in that connection and as a member of the local authority I realise the inability of the local authority to give any effective consideration to protests by the affected residents. I am not often in agreement with the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) but his words on this occasion ought to be taken to heart. The public view this matter seriously. Large associations like the County Councils Association have begged this House to take some action and give them the protection which they consider to be necessary in this matter. If the question is to be dealt with in the lighthearted spirit suggested by the attitude of some hon. Members it will be felt outside that the House is not anxious to assist those who are responsible for the maintenance of good order in areas where dog racing tracks exist.
I do not attach any more importance to protests from church people than to protests from other people but neither do I attach any less importance to such protests. A large and powerful organisation was initiated by the church people in the area which I represent to protest against the type of dog track which was established there. Personally, I am not opposed to dog tracks as such, although I have never been at one. I see no reason why dogs should not run. [Laughter.] An Irishman is said to have the opportunity of speaking twice and correcting himself afterwards. What I mean is that I see no reason why dogs should not be run in the way they are run at these dog tracks, in competition one with the other, so long as the tracks
are well conducted. But I do see an objection to the type of conduct that takes place at many of these dog tracks at the present time. All decent people, I think, feel the necessity for some form of control. As to what is the best form of control my own view is that control can best be exercised—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the question of whether the Debate should be adjourned or not.

Mr. McENTEE: I agree, Sir, that I have wandered from the point. I think it would be a great pity to adjourn this Debate. To do so would mean the killing of the Bill. If I were satisfied that, with the killing of the Bill, the Government would introduce a Government Bill to deal with the matter I might think that a desirable thing to do. The Government have announced general support of the principles of the Bill with certain exceptions. One of these exceptions at least is an important one and they have been defeated on it, and I have no doubt that on some others they would also be defeated. But it would be doing a grave disservice to Parliament if we allowed a Measure of this character to be defeated in the way in which this Motion seeks to defeat it. I hope the House will go on with the Bill and that if the Bill needs improvement, it will get it. If it is found that it cannot be improved, I presume the same thing will happen with regard to this Measure as happened with regard to a very similar Measure when we were considering the question of cinemas, and the Government were ultimately forced to take the matter into their own hands. If this Bill is not given facilities to get on to the Statute Book, the Government will be forced to take similar measures with regard to this very important question of the control of dog racing tracks.

2.46 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: I support the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate because of the confusion that will be caused owing to the decision taken with regard to the date. I rise for the purpose of answering a question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Captain Elliston), who referred to the totalisator. We believe that when the Royal Commission bring forward their report, the Government will bring in legislation with
regard to betting and the totalisator generally, and it is obvious that they cannot leave out the question of dog racing, because the totalisator will have to be put on dog racing tracks if it is legalised. Therefore, no harm will be done in adjourning this Debate, and I think that the House will be very wise to wait until we can have one comprehensive Measure dealing not only with the totalisator and betting generally, but with the sport as such. There is no doubt that if the local authorities have the licensing of these dog racing tracks, it should be accompanied by the setting up of some body to control and license the sport that takes place on those tracks, It is certainly essential that the public should realise that we, as Members of

Parliament, are anxious to see that they get a square deal and fair play, that there is no ramp, and that the game is run straight. One local authority would have no jurisdiction over a track in another local authority's area, and we know that these animals will be transferred from one track to another; but I do not want to labour that point, as I am getting a little out of order. I hope the House will agree to the adjournment of the Debate without going to a division.

Question put, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 54; Noes, 143.

Division No. 151.]
AYES.
[2.49 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Moore-Brabazon. Lieut.Col. J. T. C.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Groves, Thomas E.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Apsley, Lord
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nail, Sir Joseph


Bateman, A. L.
Hartington, Marquess o[...]
North, Captain Edward T.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks. Aylesbury)
Hartland, George A.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Beaumont. Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. 0. J. (Aston)
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Knight, Holford
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Llverp'l>


Broadbent, Colonel John
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Burnett, John George
Levy, Thomas
Thompson, Luke


Carver, Major William H.
Lewis, Oswald
Thorne, William James


Clarry. Reginald George
Liddall, Walter S.
Titchfield. Major the Marquess ot


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)
Logan, David Gilbert
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lymlngton, Viscount
Weymouth, Viscount


Denville, Alfred
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Dickle, John P.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col, Sir M.
Mr. Donner and Mr. Wise.


NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, w.)
Doran, Edward
Leckle, J. A.


Agnew. Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Duggan, Hubert John
Llewellin, Major John J.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington,N.)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Astbury, Lieut. Com Frederick Wolle
Edwards, Charles
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lunn, William


Banfield. John William
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mabane, William


Batey, Joseph
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Birchall. Major Sir John Dearman
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McCorquodale, M. S.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
McEntee, Valentine L.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Magnay, Thomas


Briant, Frank
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Maltland, Adam


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Goff, Sir Park
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R,


Browne, Captain A. C.
Goldle Noel B.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gower, Sir Robert
Martin, Thomas B.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Grenfell. David Rees (Glamorgan)
Meller, Richard James


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Cape, Thomas
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Clarke, Frank
Hales, Harold K.
Munro, Patrick


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harris, Sir Percy
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H._


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James.


Cook, Thomas A.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Parkinson, John Allen


Cooke, Douglas
Hornby, Frank
Patrick, Colin V.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pearson, William G.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Penny, Sir George


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Curry, A. C.
Jenkins, Sir William
Petherick, M.


Daggar, George
John. William
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple,)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pickford Hon. Mary Ada


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Price. Gabriel


Dobble, William
Lawson, John James
Procter. Major Henry Adam


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isle!)
Shute, Colonel J. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Ray, Sir William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Soper, Richard
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Remer, John R.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Spens, William Patrick
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Storey, Samuel
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Ron Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Womersley, Walter James


Runge, Norah Cecil
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Summersby, Charles H.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Sutcli[...]e, Harold



Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Tate, Mavis Constance
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Selley, Harry R.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Mr. Elliston and Lieut.-Colonel Sir


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Tinker, John Joseph
Walter Smiles.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Resolution of local authority putting Act into force.)

(1) This Act shall not come into force in any local area unless and until a resolution extending this Act to such area has been passed by the local authority in manner provided by this section and a certificate to that effect has been issued by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the application of the local authority.

(2) Before passing a resolution for the purposes of this section the clerk to the local authority shall cause notice of the motion for the resolution and of the meeting of the local authority at which, it is to be submitted to be published not less than ten or more than twenty-one days before such meeting in one or more newspapers published in the district of the local authority.

(3) A resolution of a local authority shall have no effect for the purposes of this section unless at least three-fourths of the whole number of the members in the local authority shall have been present at the meeting and have voted in favour of the resolution. —[Mr. Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time."
This proposed new Clause is intended to provide local option within local option. It has become all the more necessary having regard to the decision taken on the new Clause proposed by the Under-Secretary. In the earlier proceedings the Blackburn Rovers, as I may call them, had a very good gate. They had a good gate in the last contest, and so we are further considering this Measure. It has been the practice in this country in respect of a great deal of municipal legislation to provide for the principle of adoption, that is to say, when a Bill receives the Royal Assent and becomes an Act of Parliament, it does not come into operation in any area until it has been formally adopted by the local council. I am certain that if we had present one of the representatives of the
Ministry of Health he would be able to tell us of the number of Acts of Parliament of the adoptive character which are only in operation in particular areas.
What are the grounds for this new Clause? My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) and myself are at one in that we do not like local option, and the more we can limit it the better pleased we shall be. The Bill imposes local option, arid if the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) had his way, he would extend it to a great many smaller authorities. It will have the effect of bringing into local elections acute controversy in many cases as to whether or not they should take any particular line with regard to the licensing or otherwise of dog racing tracks.
I would remind hon. Members of the strong arguments that were used in this House when we were discussing another Measure dealing with cinemas. I do not think that there is the slightest doubt that the original Measure, which received a Second Reading with some difficulty and was, in fact, destroyed in Committee upstairs, owed its destruction to the strong opposition to local option which was shown not merely by the rank and file of the Liberals, but by many Members of the Cabinet. They objected to the fundamental principle. The House has decided that this Bill, which contains local option, should have a Second Reading, the Committee upstairs has passed it, and we are now considering a local option Bill. Therefore, those of us who dislike it have only the remedy to limit its scope as far as possible. Accordingly, if the proposed Clause is passed, the Act will not operate in any local government area to which it applies until the Home Secretary has issued the necessary certificate; and he shall not and will not issue such a certificate until a resolution has
been passed by the local authority, of which due notice has been given; and, in addition, such resolution shall not be operative unless at least three-quarters of the whole number of the members of the local authority have been present at the meeting and have voted in favour of the resolution.
This adoptive Clause is not a new or novel Clause, but a Clause of the kind that can be found spread over a great body of the municipal legislation of this country. Most Governments from time to time have been responsible for the passage of municipal legislation of this character, and as a result those areas that desire to make use of certain kinds of legislation are free to do so, and those who wish to avoid introducing into their local politics elements of controversy that are absent can do so by omitting to adopt the Act. Whatever merits this Clause may have had when it was originally put down, its merits are much greater to-day as a result of the decision, which the House took by a large majority that the Bill has to come into operation on the day in which it receives the Royal Assent. In the course of the discussion whether we should adjourn consideration of the Bill, I tried to explain that point. I do not want to abuse my position by re-explaining it at any length, but I would point out that if this Bill is passed in its present form, at the moment it receives the Royal Assent, greyhound racing will be illegal throughout the United Kingdom, with the exception of Northern Ireland. It will only become re-legalised when the local authority has granted a licence, and as 21 days notice has to be given, at least that period must elapse. If, on the other hand, we introduce into the Bill the adoptive principle, we shall interpose that necessary period which will restore that aspect of the new Clause moved by the right hon. Gentleman that most of us would have desired to preserve, because our objection was not primarily to the date, but to the alteration of the Title.
I hope that the promoter will realise how vitally necessary this new Clause is. He is in favour of the Bill. I on balance do not like it very much, but if he wants it to come into operation, he must seek the passage into law of a Bill that can be made to work. It cannot work in the form in which it will leave the House
unless it is altered. It cannot be altered in a way that the Home Secretary had in mind because the House has decided otherwise. The only device for overcoming the difficulty in which we are involved is the device of this new Clause. It was not put down for that purpose, but the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) is now in the position that if be succeeds in persuading the House to carry the Bill through the rest of the proceedings to-day, it will leave the House in a totally unworkable form. Therefore, if he is wise, he will seize the rope of salvation which I am flinging to him, which will enable him at least to arrive dry in the craft which he is trying to pilot into another place.

3.5 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: I beg to second the Motion.
I take it that on this new Clause we shall not be allowed to explain in detail why we oppose the principles of this Bill, but however bad the Bill may be, and however much it may cut across the principles which many of us hold who are opposed to the licensing of dog tracks, I feel that the proposed new Clause will make this bad Bill just a little bit better. I think it is only right that a local authority should be given the opportunity of saying whether it will adopt this Bill. It will merely mean that we shall have the same state of affairs as exists in the case of Sunday cinematograph entertainments. The Bill will not become operative until the Home Secretary has issued a certificate, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, certifying that the local authority have elected to adopt the Measure. Hon. Members who have had experience in local affairs will know that this principle of giving local authorities the choice of adopting Measures has been in force for a good many years in relation to many matters of local Government. In the position in which we now are there is a, greater need than ever for leaving this option to the local authorities. The proposal for recommittal has been rejected, the proposal to adjourn has been rejected, and without such a Clause as is now proposed the hon. Member who is responsible for the Bill will find himself with a Measure which has become thoroughly unworkable. At least the new Clause will make a bad Bill a little better.
If there are any hon. Members who do not like this adoption principle, who think local authorities ought not to have the right to say whether they will adopt a Bill or not, I would ask them to read the first paragraph of the new Clause. I feel that will remove any apprehensions they may have, because all it provides is that the Measure shall not come into force in any local area unless and until a resolution extending it to that area has been passed by the local authority. Many hon. Members object to the court of quarter sessions or any other outside authority having the right to confirm or reject some determination on the part of the local authority. They contend that the local authority is responsible for the lives of the community, and that it alone should have the right to say whether a certain licence should or should not be granted. I think that the more authority that is given to a local body the more are the anomalies and the difficulties that may be created. We know of anomalies which exist now arising from the action of other licensing authorities. Many of us would like to see that the decisions of every authority exercising discretion were liable to consideration by a further court of appeal.
Many hon. Members have said that the licensing authority must be the local authority because the local authority alone is sufficiently well fitted and well attuned to the needs of the neighbourhood to give a definite and conclusive decision, when any such matters come before them. I ask those hon. Members who take that view,' how they can possibly oppose the suggestion that we now make that the local authorities should not only be the judges in their own area but that they should be the sole determining authority as to whether this Bill should be adopted? The Mover of the new Clause said that no new principle is being suggested. The principle has worked very well in many matters that have to come before local authorities and that occupy an important place in the work that local authorities have to perform in regard to public health, and the like. I hope that the House will adopt this principle, in order to make this complex a Bill a little better, by supporting the new Clause which has been moved and which I am glad to be able to support.

3.12 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I was not at all surprised to hear the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) move the Amendment, but I was literally amazed to hear the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) supporting it. Let us see what the Clause does. The local authority must first of all apply to the Home Secretary to be allowed to adopt this Act—if the Bill becomes law. In order to pass a resolution to that effect, 75 per cent. of the members of the authority must be present, and the 75 per cent. must all vote in the same way. The hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that some of us have had more experience of local authority work than he has had. I have an idea that he has had none—if he does not mind my saying so. How is it to be expected that 75 per cent. of the members of a local authority must attend any meeting at any time? I would like to know how many times in this Assembly 75 per cent. of hon. Members are present, even on Budget day?
That is the first point. Having decided, by 75 per cent. of the membership being present and voting all in the same way, then, the local authority will appeal to the Home Secretary to issue an Order showing that they have power to adopt the Act. Let us see what happens then. The first argument that I level against the hon. Gentleman, especially as he is in the legal profession, is that he ought to know that there are thousands of local authorities in this country, big and small, and that every one of them is called upon under his clause to adopt this Measure in the first instance. He believes in economy in governmental administration; I should imagine this process would require a staff at the Home Office to see that all the applications were in order, and to make sure that 75 per cent. of the members of each local authority were present and had all voted for the adoption of the Act. I should imagine that it would cost a few thousand pounds per annum to administer this Clause.
Let me pass on to the next consideration. What would happen? One local authority might adopt the Act and another local authority next to it would not. Consequently, we might have all the dog racing tracks in
Croydon and none in Leicester; or, on the other hand, it might be possible to have all the dog racing tracks in the country in Leicestershire, and none in Croydon. When the local authority has adopted the Act, and the Home Office has issued its decree that all is in order, the local authority must then give notice to the Press on an application from the owner of a dog racing track. If hon. Gentlemen want to delay the passing of this Measure, they must have better hands at the task than the two hon. Members who have moved and seconded this Clause.

3.16 p.m.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I hope that my two hon. Friends who have moved and seconded this Clause will carefully consider what it is they are proposing, for a more undemocratic proposal I have seldom listened to. I have the honour to represent one of the most salubrious and delightful constituencies in Essex, namely, West Leyton, and what my hon. Friends are proposing to do is to put into the hands of some of the rural or agricultural gentlemen—admirable and public-spirited gentlemen—who rule the affairs of Essex, the power to thrust upon us in both East and West Leyton a track that we do not want. My hon. Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) has some knowledge of local government law, and I have no doubt that he would be able to tell the House, were he desirous of so doing, that there are local authorities which are composed of one man only. I would ask how, in such an authority, composed of one person, the majority of three-fourths of the authority required by Sub-section (3) of the Clause will be arrived at? No doubt my hon. Friend, with his superior legal knowledge, will be able to explain that point. I would like my hon. Friends to understand that their proposal amounts to this, that, while we as a Tory party stand for democracy and the principle of live and let live, they desire to use a Mussolini type of liberatorship to thrust upon us what we do not want. I hope they will take second thoughts on their proposal, and will see the impossibility of its application by a parish council, a rural district council, an urban district council or any of those sections of public administration, even such a borough as the one I represent, which must, under
the definition Clause, be dominated by the county council or some other borough council; and that they will accordingly withdraw the proposal.

3.19 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: In listening to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Leyton (Sir W. Sugden), I had some difficulty in understanding whether he was delivering a speech on the Clause which is now before the House, or whether he was delivering a speech on a later Clause. If his speech was on this Clause, 1 venture to suggest to him that closer application of the great powers which he undoubtedly possesses to the Bill as it stands and to this Clause will convince him that, whether the Clause is a good one or a bad one, it will have no such effect as he has suggested. The Clause certainly lays it down that a local authority shall not have these duties thrust upon it unless it so desires. Whether the authority is a county council, a rural district council, a parish council, or any other council, is a matter which does not arise on this Clause, but which can, and I have no doubt will, be discussed later. It will be discussed with all the wealth of oratory, all the strong feeling and all the underlying fierceness that that matter generally engenders. But it is absolutely wrong to suggest that anything in this Clause would enable a racing track to be forced on Leyton. Whether the Clause is passed or not, the authority will still be able to license or to refuse to license such a track. The only difference it will make is that they will be able to decide whether they shall have these duties thrust upon them.
My hon. Friend says it is undemocratic. I should not mind if it was. It is all the better for that. But, as a matter of fact, I do not think it affects it one way or the other. It simply gives these great and wise people, who, we are told, should have all the powers that this House can delegate to them, who are the people who should have a say in the question of greyhound racing, the right to say whether they want those powers or not. It is possible to have too much of a good thing. That may be said of some of the speeches to-day. It may be that a great many of these authorities who will receive powers under the Bill would be a great deal happier without them. We have
been told by supporters of the Bill that there is a great demand for these powers. It may be that in certain areas there is, but it is unquestionably the fact that in other areas they will be a great nuisance. I do not think there is anything unsound or inconsistent with the principles of the Bill in accepting this Clause, which intensifies local option. If you are going to have local option, have lots of it. I should like to have all the local option there is in this Bill and none anywhere else, and we should be quit of it.
Returning to the point raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) again we are in disagreement. I have had some experience of local authorities, and, although I have considerably less opinion of them as a rule than he has, in this case the conditions are reversed. In the local authorities on which I have served it has been the exception rather than the rule when 75 per cent. of the Members were not present.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Has the hon. Member seen a local authority 80 unanimous that, when 75 per cent. of them were present, they were all of one mind?

Mr. BEAUMONT: I was coming to that point later. The hon. Gentleman must not endeavour to curb my oratory on this important point. It is a matter that needs careful development. I am meeting his closely reasoned speech point by point. Whatever faults local councillors may have, inattention to business is not among them, and it is not at all unreasonable to suggest that 75 per cent, of them should be present. But I think there is some ground in the hon. Gentleman's second objection, that it is unreasonable to suggest that 75 per cent. of them should be all of one mind. I think such a resolution, adopting very important powers, should not be carried at a thinly attended meeting, but it is unreasonable to say that three-quarters of the Members must be in favour of it. If we can satisfy him on the other points it would be perfectly easy to move an Amendment to deal with the point that he wants, and to alter the third Sub-section of the Clause. That is not a great argument against the Clause, and, though I cannot speak for my hon. Friend who is not here at the moment, I am inclined to think that it is an Amendment which would be accepted.

Mr. MABANE: The hon. Member has not indicated the nature of the Amendment.

Mr. BEAUMONT: We are not discussing an Amendment of the Clause but the Motion "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Mr. MABANE: I thought that the hon. Member was going to indicate what Amendment would be accepted.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I suggest the deletion of the words at the end of the Clause:
and have voted in favour of the resolution.

Sir W. SUGDEN: The hon. Member has had great experience as a local administrator, and he knows how the county council, in making by-laws, can override all the parish, rural, and district councils. If he wants to give full democratic opportunity, which I suggest he is not giving, how would he protect them?

Mr. BEAUMONT: The hon. Member is discussing an entirely different point.

Sir W. SUGDEN rose—

Mr. BEAUMONT: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer it. There is no hurry in this matter. There is no misunderstanding in the mind of any Member of the House about this important point. You are giving the power in the Bill to some local authority, and we have not yet come to the point where we finally decide what that authority shall be.

Sir W. SUGDEN: It gives it in the definition Clause.

Mr. BEAUMONT: We are not discussing the definition Clause. The time will come when we shall discuss the definition Clause, or perhaps I,shall be more accurate in saying that the time may come, and then I shall be happy to deal with thee, point raised by the hon. Member. The Clause lays it down that to whatever authority you give those powers, whether they are workmen or millionaires, whether parish, district, borough or county councils, they shall pass a resolution putting the Act into force. That is the only thing the Clause does. I suggest that in the event of the Clause being read a Second time an Amendment to delete the words,
and have voted in favour of the resolution,
would meet the point. I wish to refer to the contention that the Home Office would be snowed under with applications and correspondence if this Clause were carried. I hope very much that we are to hear the Under-Secretary on the matter, which is one of importance. If their conjecture was correct the argument would be a valid one, if not for the rejection of the Clause, for the earnest consideration of some Amendment. I suggest that the Home Office at the present time, under the able and efficient management which it now enjoys, is not so depleted and overworked that it could not deal with a very small matter of this kind. The hon. Member exaggerates the number of local authorities who would in fact adopt these powers. I think that he would find that there would be comparatively few and that a very little correspondence would be entailed upon the Home Office and very little, if any, extra expense.
I come to the real purpose of my intervention, which is to ask for a statement from the promoters of the Bill as to their position in regard to the new Clause. I am not among those who desire unduly to prolong unnecessarily an already protracted Debate, but I do not think that an important Clause of this kind ought to be decided without a statement from the promoters of the Bill as to their attitude. If they adopt a hostile attitude, I should like to know the reason for that attitude. If they adopt a favourable attitude, I do not want any further answer than the mere acceptance of the Clause, but other hon. Members might like to know the reason promoting the acceptance. I do not think that it would be treating the House fairly or properly for the promoters of the Bill not to make some statement to the House.
The Under-Secretary has pointed out that the Government 'are neither opposing nor supporting the Bill, but as they have taken a large part in the conduct of it I should like to hear some words from the Under-Secretary in reply to the objection put forward by the hon. Member for Westhoughton, and how in his view, and in the view of the draftsmen of the Home Office and the Government, the Clause would affect them. I commend the Clause to the House. I think that it
is carrying to its logical conclusion the principles of the Bill, the principles of local option. If the local authorities are the right people to deal with this matter, they should decide whether they wish to deal with it or whether they do not. There can be no conceivable reason for rejecting the Clause. It is little use dealing with the argument put forward by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Sir W. Sugden). It is perfectly simple to say that it is not the intention of Parliament to impose on local authorities duties and powers which they do not wish to have, and if the majority of the House take that view, as I think they do, I hope they will give their support to the Clause.

3.33 p.m.

Sir W. SMILES: I am glad that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who moved the Amendment, has returned to his place. I do not see in his place the hon. Member who seconded the Clause. He referred to my colleague and myself as the Blackburn Rovers. I might refer to him and his colleague as the South Croydon Wanderers, but it must be remember that that is a club that is not in the First Division. My first reason for objecting to the Clause is one of time. It would take a good deal of time for the local authority to get together 75 per cent. of its members if it wished to take these powers or not. It would also take a certain amount of time to get the necessary formalities through the Home Office. It is no hardship on a local authority to have these powers conferred upon it. If there is no track and no contemplated track there is no hardship on the local authority. If there is no track and no proposed track there is no expense on the local authority. It would be unfair to some tracks in other parts of the country if there was one law for one place and another law for another. The promoters of the tracks go through the same formalities with their local authorities before they are allowed to conduct their sport. Allusion has been made to the question of responsibilities. Every Member of this House has responsibility which he cannot shirk. We must cast our votes one way or another, or take the coward's way of abstaining. I think the members of all local authorities should be equally courageous, and should be forced to face up to their responsibilities. They should decide
whether their town, or district, should have a dog track in its area or not. I have no intention of excusing anyone.

3.36 p.m.

Mr. WISE: The hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) has, I think, in a short and pithy sentence, completely damned his own case by stating that he wholly disapproves of the principle that there should be one law for one part of the country and another law for another part. That must strike at the root of local option. If local option is to be preserved, there must be one law for one part of the country and another law for another. One council may decide that it is longing for greyhound racing and another that it is not. The principle is not whether or not we disapprove of local government. We have a different conception on the functions of local government from those which appear to be held by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn. The function of local government, in our view, is to administer the finances and look after the general amenities of an area. The duty of a local council is to see that such roads as come under its control are properly maintained; that its educational services are properly maintained, and that it carries out the hundred and one duties of real local administration. It is not the duty of local authorities to take decisions upon large moral issues.
Many of us regret very deeply that the question of the opening of cinemas on Sundays was ever referred to any form of local option. We feel that questions of that sort should be left either to this House, or some national body operating under a Statute passed by this House. If this unfortunate Bill goes through, elections of local authorities will be fought out on the question of whether or not they approve of dog racing, and not on whether they are properly administered. My friends and I claim that such local authorities as have the good sense to stand out in this matter, and confine themselves to their proper duties, should be entitled to do so. Only those who rush in where angels fear to tread should be able to decide whether or not they shall have dog racing. Remembering the type of person who does rush in where angels
fear to tread, we have endeavoured to insert in this Clause a certain amount of protection even for those local authorities who rashly wish to spread their tentacles over a field which need not concern them.
Here I would disagree very strongly from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont). I do not think that it is too much to ask that at least three-fourths of a local council should be in favour of taking so momentous a resolution as this before any effective steps can be taken to carry it out. I cannot see why it should be considered at all an unreasonable demand. In some local authorities there are sharp divisions of parties—not always the same parties as we have in this House—but the last thing that is wanted in a local authority is that a decision of this kind should be carried as a mere party issue by the use of party whips in the local council. Many of us on this side of the House disapprove of party whips in local government, but it is an unfortunate fact which we have to accept, and unless this protective provision is put in, it is quite possible that because it is made a purely party issue, a bare majority might carry a resolution to apply for powers to regulate dog racing without the majority of the council being in favour of such resolution, and the claim that at least three-fourths of the council should be in favour of that resolution, I submit, is not unreasonable. Further, I suggest that three-fourths is not so large a number to ask to be present if they really want to do something. Even in this House, which is occasionally very sparsely attended, we can sometimes muster a quorum of three-fourths of our Members.

Mr. TH0RNE: You only want 40.

Mr. WISE: I admit that, but I say that we occasionally have more, and when an issue of real importance is to be debated, I think that 75 per cent. of a council or even of this House should be present to take part in the Debate.

3.43 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I feel in two minds about this Clause, but if the hon. Gentleman who proposed it can give me satisfactory assurances with regard to one or two points, I will support him. But, generally speaking, I agree with the thesis that if there is to he evolution, let
us evolve. If it is a good thing that local authorities should decide, let them also decide whether they want to decide, which is, I understand, all that this Clause does. If, as the promoters of the Bill say, there is a very great demand on the part of local authorities to be given these powers, there will be no difficulty. They will go through the Statutory movements laid down in this proposed Clause to acquire those powers, and all will be in order. If, on the other hand, as we think, the great majority of people object to having the possibility of questions like this brought into local elections and local politics, they will take the earliest opportunity of saying that they do not want to be the authority to exercise the powers at all. The hon. Member for West Leyton (Sir W. Sugden) made some quite unintelligible observations when he said it was most undemocratic, because, if the Clause were passed, it might leave it in the power of one man to decide whether there was to be a track or not. In case anyone else seems to be so foolish, I would refer him to the Bill as it has come from the Committee. In it there is a definition of a local authority as the County Council for London and for other parts of England, Scotland and Wales a county or county borough. None of these authorities consists of only one man. I cannot understand at all to what the hon. Member was referring.
I ask for assurances on two points. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) said that three-quarters was too much to expect in a vote in favour of a resolution, and that he was prepared to see that altered, though the last speaker was not. I think that three-quarters of the membership voting on any resolution is much too high a proportion. The second point about which the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. II. Williams) will perhaps say something is, what is the object of saying that the clerk should give notice of discussion of the proposed resolution to be published in the Press, and so on? I am not sufficiently expert to know whether that is merely common form or whether it is something new introduced into this Bill for the first time.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: It is new.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I should think it is new because it is so stupid.
Everything so far connected with this Bill has been so stupid that this is in accordance with what has preceded. What is the point of publishing a notice in a paper about a race track discussion which is to come up before a council the members of which presumably have already had notice?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: This is not a proposal with regard to a race track. It is a proposal as to whether a certain Act shall be adopted in a local area, and it is customary to advertise the fact that a new Act is to be put into operation.

Mr. THORNE: No, you are wrong.

Captain CROOKSHANK: It has nothing to do with the race track then. If the council is to adopt a resolution that it will put an Act in operation that is only the same thing at one remove. I do not see the point of giving this form of publicity to the resolution. Even more stupid is the first Sub-section of this new Clause, which says that the Act shall not come into force until a, resolution has been passed and until a certificate to that effect has been issued by the Secretary of State on the application of the local authority. That may be common form again, but I do not see why the Home Secretary should be asked by the council to send them a little certificate to say what they;have done. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Croydon will also answer that question. Is it to be just a certificate to say that the council have been good and have followed the advice of the department in charge of the Act? What is the point? I cannot see any at all. Although I am quite prepared to agree to the principle of the new Clause, that the local authority should decide whether or not to adopt the Act, yet I do want to see the machinery of the Clause altered to the extent of removing the need for a certificate, and reducing the number who have to be present at a local authority meeting to vote in favour of the resolution.

Sir W. SMILES rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House is prepared to come to a decision.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

CLAUSE 1.—(Local authority to license.)

3.59 p.m.

Sir P. DAWSON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, after the word "granted," to insert the words:
on the application of the person named in the licence.
The object of the Amendment is to make certain that the person who applies for this concession shall be the holder of the licence. It is very important that the

The House divided: Ayes, 36; Noes, 124.

Division No. 152.]
AYES.
[3.51 p.m.


Applin, Lieut.-Cul. Reginald V. K.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Hales, Harold K.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bateman, A. L.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hartington, Marquess of
Storey, Samuel


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Cayzer Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Ga[...]nsb'ro)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lewis, Oswald
Weymouth, Viscount


Denv[...]lle. Alfred
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


D[...]ck[...]e, John P.
Makins, Brlgadier-General Ernest
Wise, Alfred R.


Donner, P. W.
Marsden, Commander Arthur



Fleming, Edward Lascelles
North, Captain Edward T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Mr. Levy and Mr. Herbert Williams.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Goldle, Noel B.
Petherick. M.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,w.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n.Bilston)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Grenfe[...]l, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Grimston, R. V.
Price, Gabriel


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Batey, Joseph
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ramsay, T B. W. (Western Isles)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ray, Sir William


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney &Zetl'nd)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Blower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Harris, Sir Percy
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Briant, Frank
Hartland, George A.
Remer, John R.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hornby, Frank
Runge, Norah Cecil


Browne, Captain A. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Burnett, John George
Hudson,Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Carver, Major William H.
Lawson, John James
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Leckle, J. A.
Southby, Commander Archlbald R. J.


Cobb, Sir Cyrll
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Logan, David Gilbert
Spens, William Patrick


Cook, Thomas A.
Lunn, William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Cooke, Douglas
Mabane, William
Tate, Mavis Constance


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Thompson, Luke


Curry, A. C.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Daggar, George
McCorquodale, M. S.
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Dobble, William
Maltland, Adam
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Duckworth, George A. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wardlaw-M[...]lne, Sir John S.


Duggan, Hubert John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Meller, Richard James
Wells, Sydney Richard


Edwards, Charles
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Williams. Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Womersley, Walter James


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Munro, Patrick
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Murray-Phillpson, Hytton Ralph



Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Parkinson, John Allen
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Fremant[...]e, Sir Francis
Patrick, Col[...]n M.
Mr. Tinker and Lieut.-Colonel Sir


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Pearson. William G.
Walter Smiles.


God, Sir Park
Penny, Sir George

person who asks for the concession, and gets it, should not be able afterwards to sell it to someone else. All that I am inclined to do in connection with this Bill is to try and amend it in such a way as to secure that the racing is under proper direction and supervision—

It being Four of the Clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) to be further considered upon Friday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at One Minute after Four o'Clock, until Monday next, 1st May.